Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Morning,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday, March 11. And this is our 08:30 meeting, starting a little late. We're back working on H550. And we're in section seven, which is dealing with the PREA issue in terms of trying to codify the PREA standards. And yesterday, we talked about a couple versions, and we have before us two separate versions. And, Charlie, I hope you have these. One is One, I probably want to keep in those standards. Didn't we really decide to take out all the standards? I think we wanted two versions. One was with no standards whatsoever, just this version here, which just deals that we would adopt the PREA that was in effect July 01/01/2024. And that on or before January 15, DOC would submit a report to us. It doesn't say on what. And that DOC would adopt policies to implement.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Track one four?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There's two versions. This one four? Yeah. Would just highlight that. There's two versions.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: And what's the other one referred to as?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One four. They're both one four.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: They're both

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: one four.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You got two versions.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Only one that's posted in the It's an internal edit, and then there's

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a What she did yeah.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: No, I just uploaded it, so it's taking a second.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I'm perfectly capable of missing It is just you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I thought also we we're talking about also keeping in all the standards. Right? Or not?

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: I thought only me. Last word was we were gonna drop all the numbered stuff.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Standards?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And we were going to hear from

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. So there's two versions in terms of how you drop the standards. One is you actually delete line by line all the standards, or you just do a phone version that doesn't even refer to that. So, Charlie, from the network, I think we want to just Your experience with PREA in terms of what you see in your work with women or folks who are incarcerated. And also, if you could weigh in, in terms of what If we should codify adopting and complying with the PREA of 01/01/2024, or if it should be different. Great. So I'm turning over to you. If you could introduce yourself for the record.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Good morning, Charlie Glisserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and appreciate you all having me in to speak to Section seven of H550. We really appreciate the committee's commitment to protecting Vermonters from sexual violence in correctional facilities. And as you know, people who are incarcerated experience a heightened risk of sexual abuse and misconduct. Vermont is not immune from these realities. Protecting individual safety in state custody is a core responsibility of our government. The federal Prison Rape Elimination Act was created to further that principle and recognizes that when the state incarcerate someone, it assumes control over that person's environment and with it a heightened duty to protect them from harm. And that duty extends equally to Department of Corrections staff who work in these facilities every day. A bit of background on PREA and the network's interaction with PREA in Vermont. In 2003, PREA was created and passed with unanimous bipartisan support in the US Congress. In 2013, the Vermont DOC began implementing the federal PREA standards. States were required to collaborate with their federally recognized sexual violence coalition in that process, which is the Vermont Network. So we worked closely with DOC to develop policies and procedures until 2015 when DOC did achieve its federal PREA certification. So today, this partnership continues through the Vermont Network's DIVAS program, which Kylan, our director of DIVAS, I testified to in this committee in, I think, February, maybe late January. And that DIVAS program provides confidential support services to people who are incarcerated in Vermont's correctional facilities, including people who experience sexual harm while incarcerated.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Vermont has invested years into strengthening prevention and response to sexual violence in correctional facilities. We see codifying PREA standards at the state level as a way to maintain and continue that progress. In December 2025,

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: the DOJ issued a memo announcing its intent to revise federal PREA standards to align with the executive order on gender ideology extremism, and that rulemaking is in progress. In the interim, PREA auditors were instructed to ignore standards that protect transgender and intersex people who face disproportionately high rates of sexual violence in custody. Last year, the DOJ also made significant funding cuts to the National PREA Resource Center. That's the primary source of support for states in training, technical assistance, and corrective action on PREA. Funding changes at the center also interrupted trainings for DOJ certified auditors. There was already a shortage of auditors, and this just further compromised compliance work on PREA. So within a short time, there have been some pretty significant shifts to PREA that will compromise incarcerated people's safety. Codifying PREA at the state level is a necessary step to preserving stability and accountability, regardless of who holds federal office or how federal agencies shift their priorities. Through this codification, Vermont will express its commitment to the protection and safety of individuals who are incarcerated and those who work in correctional facilities. There is certainly more work to be done to ensure that incarcerated people are fully protected from sexual violence. And in the future, this may include further legislation on PREA compliance and enforcement at the state level. But we see H550 as a way to continue to move forward, not fall back. Speaking to the questions raised in yesterday's hearing around listing out the standards and the contents of the report. On listing the standards, the direct effect of the law will be the same, whether the PREA standards are explicitly listed or incorporated by reference. We do support listing them in statute when possible. We see this as a way to really clearly communicate legislative intent. And it also helps Vermonters understand the protections that are available to them and their loved ones if they look at the statute. On the report contents, we do support maintaining some level of detail within five fifty regarding the contents of DOC's annual report. These reporting requirements should align with current DOC federal PREA reporting to reduce administrative burden and preserve consistency. Thank you again for your commitment to this issue and time. I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I just want a little background for the committee members. I think when we think of the Pre Act Prison Rape Elimination Act, we're thinking more of women who are incarcerated being in a situation with sexual misconduct, male on female or female on male. PREA is across our DOC system. So it would also protect our male incarcerated folks as well, which could be female staff on male incarcerated individuals, male incarcerated on female staff, or male on female female. Correct? Absolutely. So it goes across the whole board. So I don't want folks to just think this is just dealing with the Chittenden facility and just dealing with women and men that it's all throughout the whole system and all forms of sexual misconduct. I just wanna make sure folks are really clear about that.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That's absolutely right. And if you look at the DOC website on PREA, it does have some aggregated sexual abuse data and analysis that could just be helpful to the committee for context around what kinds of sexual violence occurred and where in the DOC facilities it occurred and it occurs across the facilities.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it could be inmate on inmate, staff on staff, could be inmate on staff, could be staff on inmate. Also volunteers coming into the facility as well. What about visitors? Does PREA extend to any of that? That's a

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: good question. I don't know

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the answer to that. I was curious. So my other question is, on the report back, the new version that we have, the old version on the report back, had a listing of detailed information that should be included in one version that we have, or both versions, eliminates that. So if you read the current draft that's before us, on or before January 15, DOC would submit a report to us. And that's what it says. So what what's in the report? When I read that, I'm thinking, well, what are they gonna be reporting back? Because we we have proposed to take out detailing information. So alright.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Member)]: just didn't answer your question. It does pertain to visitors. Yes. It pertains to visitors. It does.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Troy?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Is it enough, in your estimation, to simply state that DOC will share any reporting due to the federal government with the state committees?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Could you repeat that,

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Is it enough to just, in statute, state that the DOC will share any due, prior reporting due to the federal government with?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: With us.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, our committees or joint justice or whatever. I

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: think that it would be helpful to specify that the contents of the report mirror what DOC provides currently in their pre year report. We don't know how pre year reporting will change. I certainly don't want to increase administrative burden on the Department of Corrections. If the intent is to codify current practices in PREA, then I think that is most appropriate and should be reflected both in the standards and the reporting language.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you don't know right now what DOC does report back to the feds on the PREA?

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I do know that there is analysis that is reported that I think is comparable to what was listed in that one through three. We did hear from DOC staff that that does not necessarily mirror up with what they are providing. And so I would be curious if the Department of Corrections perhaps had some language suggestions to make sure that it does mirror what they're providing already.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That folks?

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: I guess Brian. I feel like when you described the reasoning for the two bullet points on page two of the testimony, the first one listing standards, the second one listing the reporting requirements, your explanations for the reasons were a little bit different. And so for the first bullet point, it was sort of sober mantra's know what's covered or know their rights or some such. I guess I'm trying to figure out the concern for both of them. Is it that things are changing at the federal level? We greatly prefer things are now to what we imagine they will be. I guess, is it enough to point to what's going on for both the reporting and what's in there? And you sort of already answered that for the first bullet point. No, we would like it's good. Would just say that the reporting needs to be what it currently is under 28 CFR 115, is that enough? And if not, what's the reason? Are we afraid that it's gonna change? Is it so people know what things are being reported on or some combination?

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I think that could absolutely be enough if reporting is what DOC is providing for an annual report is tied to their reporting standards as of, I think it's 01/01/2024. I think that is possibly a good option. As far as listing the PREA standards as of 2024 in statute, I agree. I think in practice and the intent is to codify the standards as of that 01/01/2024. Our kind of reasoning for why you might want to put standards in the statute as well is because sometimes survivors or family members of survivors do come to us with a state statute in hand and ask us, How does it protect them? And they are doing their own research. We often see survivors who are representing themselves in court. And so when I think about how we are writing statutes, I sometimes think of those kinds of people and want to make sure that maybe if you don't know how to look up a federal reference statute, you might still be able to get a sense of what is this statute really doing for me and my loved ones to protect us, if that is a helpful explanation.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: No, totally. Yeah. And then that draws, for me at least, I think a distinction between the two bullets that this example, these folks would look for what's covered, but not necessarily how or what is reported on. So that, for me, least, distinguishes it. Thanks. Thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Charlie, are you aware of any situation when you're talking about listing the standards specifically, how helpful it is for the person who's been violated to refer to this and have something action. Are you aware of any situations with the prisoners rights office that they we haven't reached out to them, but the prisoners rights office quite often is they're representing either family members of folks who are incarcerated or the incarcerated person as well. They must encounter issues as well. Are you aware of any of that? I am not

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: as familiar, but I'm happy to connect with Vermont Network staff who are more familiar. And I can follow-up by email on that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, that might be worth us asking the prisoners' rights office as well. Because a lot of situations that occur with folks who are incarcerated, family members will work with a prisoners' rights office or even those incarcerated folks will.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I think that's a great point.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Could you reach out to the defendant's the person's rights office is through the defendant general's office and see if there's anyone in the person's rights office I don't know who the head of that is anymore would weigh in on this. Because that's another legal avenue that folks have. But I'm sure would be at play. Shawn?

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So just to be clear, Charlie, so you're advocating to don't strike all that

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: stuff I out of think

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: that the direct effect of the law would be the same either way, but our preference would be to include them.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Because it's of like it's belt and suspenders. Got it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it's easier for the public to really see what's in PREA instead of having to go to the federal level.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: This leaves a lot to under This you know.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: And these people leave different agencies, are their predecessors, are their new folks going to realize the peace?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So DOC wasn't really supportive of listing out the standards per se. But the standard these standards that are listed.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One through

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: One through

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 41 through 44 are all the standards that are in the current they're in the PREA dated 01/01/2024. That's my understanding. Yes. This just reflects in statute what is in the 2024 PREA and the national standards. Shawn and then Brian?

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: And just, I mean, I know we just Conor said it yesterday, but I think what he said was hit me because it was like, yeah, maybe John's on board now, and we he's okay with it. But, like, what happens when someone comes in who's buying into the what's going on in the government right now and says there aren't transgender people? So if it's written in there, it's written in there, and it has more meat. So anyway, I'd like to

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: respect Shawn. That means a lot. Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He doesn't deserve the cheese. Alright. So

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: there were a few minutes of testimony from the DOC coroner yesterday afternoon when we were talking about this, and they were arguing against the 01/01/2024 date. But I didn't get the impression that it was in the same vein as them worried. They were worried about being handcuffed or worried about extra administrative work. I'm trying to get my head around it. So whatever happens, whatever changes occur at the federal level, suppose they strike these standards entirely, can you still refer in the wake of that to '28 CFR Part 115? Do you need the date? What if a good update happens on in 2025, for instance? And do you remember this testimony? Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the commissioner kinda weighed that said that to me as well. Why lock it into 2024? We're gonna continue what we're doing anyway regardless of any changes that occur on the federal level, which I know he would do.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: I know.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But Mary has also put out, we have different commissioners over time, administrations change. And I thought maybe we could have a review process in a couple of years in terms of do we update that date to if another one is promulgated that is better. And we have a review in a couple of years.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Could we also then require reporting per 28 CFR one fifteen as of 01/01/2024?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The reporting in terms of

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Not just listing those things that aren't pre we describing how they must report. And we lock that in Amber,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We lock that in.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Because if the federal government decides that they no longer need states to report, we still

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: want them.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We still want the report. But

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: do we want them doing that anyway? Does that approach of freezing 01/01/2024 for the reporting as it is either lead to missing information or to duplication of effort?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Punch it to Hillary. Yeah.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I think it's

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: a great question for affirmative corrections and legislative counsel. And then my my understanding was that the there wasn't mess there the DOC staff didn't feel like there was exact alignment between the reporting language in here and as of the last draft and what they are currently required to provide for federal PREA. So I guess that's part of the question too, and that's why there might be additional administrative burden if those diverge in any way.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Alright. I'm gonna try.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. Are are you that line? I think it's

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: It's quick. And

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I understand. I I too wanna minimize duplicative administrative burdens. Nonetheless, I think it's okay if we ask for information that requires administration. Just because people say this is gonna be an administrative burden isn't enough for me to say, okay, fine, we'll strike it. It's okay for us to ask.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They already have to report to

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: them anyway. This event The

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: question is, do we ask them to report more?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Well, in this event, right now, I would say no, right now. Because the federal requirements, I guess it's not as put, Conor. Because the federal requirements are sufficient. If they're going to give us what we want, that could change. If that changes, and that change requires more administration from the DOC, I'm okay with asking for them to administrate nonetheless.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So would that play in again to having a review in a couple of years?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. In

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: terms even of what's reported to us that we keep So say that we say, okay, right now for the next two years, they report back to us in terms of what they're reporting back to the feds with why we're pre But we're gonna review this in two years. Yeah. I don't know if you do that through a sunset or you can do different language. Maybe that's not a sunset. I don't know. But it's a check-in in two years. So

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: three words are nagging at me a little bit in this, right? And I know the justification for them within available appropriations is put in because we don't want the perception that we're binding the administration for future years there, which is where we got the sticky situation with the veto and everything. At the same time, take those three words within available appropriations and use them with some of the bullet points down there. You know, we couldn't train our staff because we didn't have enough money. You know, we couldn't do this reporting because we didn't have enough money. Department of Corrections never has enough money. So, are those three words a blanket get out of jail free card for not with any of these bullets in there? Yes, they are. They are. I think so. It gets them off the hook for anything, right?

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, at the very least, you strike them. You butt heads over the, you know, the territorial contest.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yes, I wonder if there's another way to say it. I mean, we do like it's not uncommon for us to have mandates for the executive branch to follow.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, Troy, can you go over again the dates when they were adopted? If you took out within available appropriation, DOC shall adopt and comply with PREA.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: When The dates of when PREA was passed The background.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In 2003, PREA was created.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It was created. In 2013, Vermont began implementing the federal PREA standards and then was certified in that they had federal PREA certification in 2015. And it's my understanding that those PREA national standards have been periodically updated. And so despite Vermont achieving that federal certification in 2015, that that's not necessarily where we would want to tie ourselves. To that 2015 search? Correct. Yes. I'm sure that it has changed plenty since then.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But states were required to collaborate with their federally recognized sexual violence coalitions. So that would be these folks. Are states required to incorporate PREA? Do you see states? Are they being required by the feds to incorporate PREA practices? I'm

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: not an expert. What I know is that I think the majority of states are either in compliance with BREA or making, I forget the status, substantial steps to be in compliance with BREA. And some of the teeth behind not being in compliance with BREA is impacts to funding for sexual violence work.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Which punctuates Conor's point all the more.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what I was trying to play through. So if we eliminate it within available appropriations, how does that really play out?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Me, we strike those three words and I'm moving towards that, it essentially sends the message that Vermont intends to be PREA compliant regardless whether or not PREA is a thing or whether or not funding from the Feds is a thing. We still hold these standards to be important for how we do corrections in Vermont.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Like, we don't ask DEC to test water quality within available appropriations. That's their job. This is the job to make sure people don't get sexually assaulted in prison. It's their job. It's precise.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Where are we

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: as a committee? Of course, DOC is not the room here. But where are we as a committee? Are we headed to Kill those three. Kill them. And keep that standards listed.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yep. Yep. Yep.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: We are.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: That's where I am.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yep. That's

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: where I lost yeast.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: We're catching up to Mary. Mary's so quick.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are folks who are silent okay with that?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes. I

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: don't know if I am or not.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm no on the whole thing.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Oh, you are.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, we figured that.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: We're putting good money after bad to make it solve the root cause. Nobody should be fearful in person, whether you're transgender, gay, small, blue eyes, that's where we should be putting our money. Not in more reporting, etcetera. I hate the concept of any individual being fearful for their safety in prison. That's what we should be solving. But I think those

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: are false premises. Not talking

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: about Priam because Priam does protect folks from being victimized.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: This is just another Band Aid

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: on a bleeding body. So, Kevin, I am happy, and I mean this sincerely, to have you join the struggle for ending transphobic violence. 100%. The truth of the matter is transphobic violence exists in society and is heightened in incarcerative settings. So this is that. This is fighting transphobic violence. This is putting teeth behind actions that seek to end transphobic violence in corrections, which is our purview. So I'm grateful to hear that you're in it for that fight, and I am convinced that this is part of that fight.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Just to to clarify, we're talking about the we're instituting the 44 standards? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I'm not okay with it. That's it's it's still very prescriptive. But you don't need it.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: We can't implement body cams on correctional officers so that we know what's going on inside the activities, we can write rules all day long and it's not going to be effective. We need to have control what's going That's on where we should be putting more money rather than trying to report on what we can't control.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, that inability to overrule a labor law doesn't mean you should throw up your hands about any

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: of that. But I agree with that. But we should vote. But we need to have the same great enthusiasm

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: that I'll you have to

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: join in This that little tiny bit of population on the whole population. That's what I'm saying.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, doesn't It does. The whole population.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I agree. But that's not And that was

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: the point in the beginning

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: of conversation. This It's for is to provide safety within our correctional facility for everyone who is in that facility, staff, inmates, volunteers, anyone coming in. This is to provide safety and security within that facility, exactly what Kevin wants, that it should not be a place where people are preyed upon for it. But this is a tool to prevent that from happening. This is a tool. It's I'm not even looking at the report back. I'm just looking at that first section in terms of codifying it and being very clear in what standards everyone in DOC needs to comply with. So Joe and then Shawn Sweeney.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: The other piece that I missed, but I would agree that striking the within available appropriations language is appropriate here. So, I mean, I I had dissented on a bill last year for children apart. What is this approach?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Children apart.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: But that's different because I I I would perceive that as more of a a nice thing to have, but it's discretionary. Whereas this really isn't discretionary. You know, this is not discretionary work on the Department of Corrections.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it hasn't been for twelve years.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Precisely. So then it should not be within available appropriations. I think Conor's analogy is valid in this case. So I'm fine with that piece of it. I just think that putting 44, how many?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 44.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: 44 different standards there is a little, it's a bit much.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Shawn and then Brian and then James.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm talking about that point. If we choose this for all of our statutes, you're gonna almost double the green books, because you can't reiterate everything. I mean, that's the way law is written, is you refer to statutes or the act or the section. You don't write rewrite it every time you use it. That's that's not a practical way to I'm not against having it in here because you're trying to get the book do the belts and suspenders but the practicality of doing it this way, we don't generally write all that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There are times we do list out requirements in statute from departments and agencies.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Oh, sorry. Go ahead. If I may both. As I noted, the direct effect of the law will be the same, whether these standards are listed or not. Do think that because part of the intent of this bill is to codify kind of current practices that are and may continue to shift, that's perhaps a distinction between other types of statutory references. I also just wanted to note that PREA is in part about sexual violence response, but I feel like the core of it is really about sexual violence prevention. If you look at these standards, things like specialized training for employees and volunteers about zero tolerance for sexual violence and sexual harassment in correctional facilities, mental health treatment. These kinds of standards and the teeth that come with them really result in detailed prevention, treatment, and staff understanding and volunteer understanding around what the standards are, which I think is really helpful in stopping violence before it starts. I also think that the data collection and review requirements within the PREA standards are also quite helpful in analyzing problems so that they can take corrective action and be prevented in the future. So just something to consider, too, around no level of sexual violence in a correctional facility is acceptable. I don't think that we should accept that as a reality. And one way to do that is to codify some of the prevention tools that we currently have.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Shawn and Brian and James.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So to go a little deeper, Charlie, essentially what was getting at, and I so has PREA, after its action, when they put it into law in 2004, you said, right? '3. 2004. Has it made a difference?

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It's absolutely made a difference. As far as the real data to express that, I don't have that at my hands, but it was a massive, massive step forward for Vermont and for the country.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Okay.

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

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: I don't think we have yet addressed the second bullet point and how specific we want to be when we're talking about reporting. And maybe I should just let that sit for a little while, and we'll get to it later. But I'm also hoping and I'm sure you and Tate are all over it but that we're going to have Josh and Jen back in here. And Maybe they can talk to us about

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: promotion on January 24.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah, but the Priya team too.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The whole team. Here. It's our goal for tomorrow, for sure. Okay.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I was just gonna say, I mean, I'm personally ambivalent as to whether or not they're listed or not. But just for the people who are concerned, even though we've said this multiple times that whether they're listed or not, they're listed in the actual law that is being referenced. So they still exist. And that's not me saying take them out. I mean, that's me saying regardless of their in or out, they exist and they're still being referenced and they still have to be met. And referencing the specific 01/01/2020 standard, I agree with Alice about coming back in a couple of years to review it, but that gives you a baseline of if something in the meantime becomes less strict, if you will, then the state, which I don't think it would do anyway, can't go and say, oh we're gonna be less strict too. And so that's my input that everybody else has kind of shared and has different, mostly the same feelings I guess on, but that's my

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: input. Mary?

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I feel it's an appropriate time to have this in where DOC is doing their plan that should be done in a couple of weeks or whatever, that this does look to starting off fresh, with this complete piece of what they're working on in this going forward. So I don't have a problem listing it. I think that it just puts it together, and especially being so respectful of DOCs, you know, going forth with their plan as well. This just puts it together.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The other thing too that I hadn't thought about, so I appreciate, Charlie, you mentioning this. And that's what triggered in me, the prisoners' rights office, to think about this, is by actually listing the standards in statute, helps the common person who's not used to reading statute to know what is laid out. And they can be very, very clear that, yes, when they're going to the prisoners' rights office or they're going to the network or even they're talking to a lawyer to say something happened, they can go right down the line and just say, there were different gender viewing and searches. We can articulate particularly where if it's not in statute, they're not gonna know where to go because most people have no clue what 23 CFR part 115 in a federal document is. Most people don't even know what 28 VSA is. So if it's laid out specifically, the standards are laid out specifically, it really helps the common person, the lame person, to support their family member who's incarcerated. And it provides a protection. It provides a protection to the person who's incarcerated, but it also provides a protection for the staff. Because the staff quite often is accused by inmates of inappropriate behavior. And this gives backup to VSEA by laying out the standards and statute, and it gives back out backup to our correctional officers, our administrative staff, and a lot of the volunteers who are coming in by listing the standards and statute. It provides a lot of protection for folks who are involved in DOC. So that part of your testimony really resonated with me because I had not thought about that. Just wanna put that on the table because we need to protect folks in the whole DOC system, all the folks. It protects our medical providers in the DOC system. We contract for them. And it might even protect I'm not sure about this because you said it does protect visitors. A lot of our folks are transported by our local ambulance services, our EMT folks. And there could be some abuse occurring there.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I think the clarity is very helpful.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I just want to maybe look back to Shawn's question. I don't know if we have the data for Priya, but I can just say having represent the correctional officers and seeing Priya implemented, it created a culture change, you know? And I think Vermont was already ahead of the curve there. But nationally in corrections, you know, this was something that was in the shadows, right? Like sexual assault in prison. Have to understand that, like he went in the clinic, you know, whatever happened, happened. And DOC, you know, it's just nationwide, not here necessarily, would like to cover that up. Know, they'd like to cover that up. So I think and I'm trying to bring Kevin on board here, too. I think what PREA does, in a sense, is give us all the information we need to make an intelligent decision of where to invest to prevent this from happening. But without that data, with the reporting requirements and bringing that out into the open, it's really hard to do. So I think it's just a crucial step, you know, to avoid this type of stuff happening. And DOC, you know, has a pre staffer that came on board after the national law was there. And that staffer is Heather Simons, I think it was originally there. But that's the person's only job is to think of this stuff. So that's why I'm thinking it's so important to have this stuff just ingrained in state statutes. In industry,

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: we have a saying, and it's real, you get what you measure. Mhmm. So I agree. If we can measure this accurately

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Then we could manage it. But we admit right up front, we can't manage it accurately. If we manage it if if we could measure it, then we should immediately eliminate it. The hearsay and the he said, she said would go away, but we're not targeting how to get accurate measurements. But just threatening those who are involved that if they do thus and so, we're going to mail you. Instead of giving them the tools to eliminate that risk. If we knew we were getting full reporting, then we could address the root cause of the problem rather than generally scaring the population to think about it. If you knew someone was raping someone in prison, they go, they're gone. In fact, you prosecute them. But the fact that we have to put all of this language together with the hopes that we're gonna scare people into thinking about it more, doesn't solve the problem is what I'm saying.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: But I think at that point, it's looking for patterns, you know? And sometimes it's whack a mole, right? Like, okay, if you're reporting and on this particular cell block, you're seeing a lot of cases pop up here from the reporting. Maybe you can tie the dots together and say, You know what? Maybe it was the staffer and they should get the heck out of there. But you can't do that unless you have the data.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I hear you. I just think it'd be simpler to get right to the monitoring.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I don't disagree with you on some of that. Yeah, I don't Maybe

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: we get 75% of the complaints. I'll bet you we don't even get that. So the other 50% continues on. We think we're helping because we're doing all this reporting, but we're not getting there. So, that's what I'm hoping. Yeah, you get what you measure if you have accurate But if you don't have accurate measurements, it's just a waste of time.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Think people have been helped by this? I really do, You're not

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: dealing with widgets. You're dealing with people. And you're dealing with a society. Absolutely. Well, that's what this works at is training. That's what it works at. And I remember, I've asked, pre PREA, I introduced a piece of legislation. It was very clear that there is, when someone is sexually assaulted in Corrections, that there is automatically no consent. That bill didn't go anywhere because no one wanted to deal with it. And that was back in the late nineties. I introduced that bill. We couldn't get it through because people were saying, well, this doesn't happen. And, of course, there would be consent in a correctional facility. Well, not when you have a power structure or not when you have a cellmate that has control over you.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I would just note that within the PREA standards, There are also elements related to reporting sexual victimization. We know sexual violence is underreported, but these kind of standards in PREA allow those reporting pathways to be as open as possible so that people know how to report, know how to be screened, and have immediate and ongoing access to sexual assault crisis services. And so those are part of the building blocks around getting those accurate numbers.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Wow, there was

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: one point I wanted to make, and it's gone.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome to the world of baby boomers.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I wanna move this along. So the first part is whether or not I think there's agreement, And Haley, this is something you may wanna pay attention to. We're looking at the first line in section seven, A, deleting the words within available appropriations. Because we're really feeling we gotta do this anyway, and it shouldn't be appropriations that determines whether or not we do employee training or inmate education. I mean, this is a requirement of Korea to do this regardless. So we're gonna be taking out within available appropriations.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: What do gotta say

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: about that, Dale? I'm happy to weigh in if it

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: would be helpful on that language.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: I think there's obviously what presented concerns are grant efforts, because all of that is already funded. But I think actually, potentially keeping that language in might encourage future funding should we approach an era in which that allocation of resources might potentially be cut. Obviously, that's not something that we foresee right now or would go against the department's values and our current practices, but want to ensure that the continued resources are put forward and that there's no threat of losing that as that would put the department in

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a very uncomfortable situation. If we couldn't carry through meeting all the standards. Yes. Because the appropriation isn't there.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Well, just the possibility that the appropriation wouldn't be there in the future.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So one piece that we're looking at that may address your concern for this particular section is that we have a look see a review in two years. So that might help address taking out the language about the appropriations piece because in two years it would be, this is twenty six point seven, '28. So on '28, we'd look at it again, which you would already have f y '20 seven in place. You'd already have f y 28 in place. And come January '28, we'd start working on FY '29. So at least there'd be a track record there, the appropriations, if we could change the language then.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Sure. Yeah. I appreciate that. As the landscape could be very different in two years, just wanting to ensure that the state continues to prioritize putting resources in this area, even in the event that the federal law should be repealed, which I think in part of the statute does accomplish that. But we want to make sure that those resources remain in the department as well, so that we can meaningfully carry out this work.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Which is shall appropriate. That might jeopardize the bill somewhat.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: But I appreciate the discussion around this. I think adding another evaluation in a few years. A

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: couple of years. Because then you've only got one more fiscal year budget to do because the '27 is already in the works. We know the funding would be there. So then it would only be FY '28 budget.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: I think that makes sense. And by then, the landscape is likely to have changed.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It will be clearer.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: On the federal level. One

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: way or the other.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Well, I didn't say which way. No, you didn't.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So then Okay, Brian. Just on this within available appropriations is one

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: of those. Yeah.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: And just to wrap my head around it, do you have any idea, Haley, what the level of federal funding is? What comes in to do PREA right now, to put it really basically?

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: It's state. It's state. For the PREA compliance, and Jen can speak to this much better than I could, the way that it's structured is actually quite interesting in that if DOC not able to certify for you for some reason for that cycle, the money is not taken out of our budget. It's actually taken out of the budget of, I believe last day was the Department of Public Safety. And that's standard for every state around the country. I think that they structured that for additional accountability with another department having their funds being taken. But even that is a relatively small amount. I think the last time that this occurred, it amounted to around $20,000 And there's no, to my understanding, there's no federal funding for Vermont to uphold the standards. But there are resources that go into the federal auditing process and things of that nature.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you have a dollar amount in terms of what we expend for pre state level? I

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: don't. I could see if that's something we could quantify.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's put out through everything. It could be put out through your academy. It could be put out through your medical contract. It could be ingrained in everything.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: That's accurate. I mean, we have Jen's position, but we also have PREA compliance managers. There are designated people at the facility who are managing the compliance. That tends to be the assistant superintendent, and that's not their only role. And I think Jen would say it's not the responsibility of one person to carry out period compliance. It's the responsibility of every staff member.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's spread, it's sprinkled out throughout the And whole I think because of having public safety be the fallback, to backfill is because in most states, the Department of Corrections is under the Department of Public Safety. It's not under the agency of human services. So that may be more the linkage why it's there.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Yeah, fair enough.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm not

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: sure whether it's DPS in every state. If that's something the committee wanted to look into, I'd be happy to do that. But here, it would be DPS. Yes. Shawn?

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: 'm just gonna push back a little bit on it because I kind of feel like depending if we're talking about like you said $20,000 that's like gives me pause. Pia's like, that's not a lot of money. And if we're gonna say it has to be paid for out of a $240,000,000 budget every year, if you told me it was a million dollars, I still think it should be in there. Because let me say that again, it's a $240,000,000 per year in three sixty five days. That's what we pay you. That's what goes The taxpayers of Vermont are paying for that. This should be I'm like you're hearing a little bit of my Irish come up, but I really feel like there's no It should absolutely be in there. Like, I'm even more convinced that within available appropriations shouldn't

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: be in there, but

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: maybe I got something wrong. But I really just feel like, I really feel strongly that we should pay for that.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Completely agree with you. And perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. But that 20,000 is the amount that's deducted if the state doesn't comply with PREA. So that's not the money that's invested. And like we were just saying, I don't even think we could quantify that because it should be embedded throughout the department and the responsibilities of every staff member. But the 20,000 is not an investment that goes in for this. And to your point, nor would that be sufficient enough by far. That's merely the kind of penalty for a state unable to certify with the federal standards.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: I think I'm being sick. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: thirteen years ago, 2013, Vermont DOC begins implementing these federal standards. Then we achieved certification two years later in 'fifteen, I guess, because that's what Charlie said. This has always been done entirely with state dollars. There's never been any federal money. Is there ever a fight over it? Because I mean, you've just said you can't really look at or quantify all the places where this is happening. Suppose a couple of particular positions could be. But has there ever been a fight about the money going to Priya?

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: No, because it's funding for Jen's position, which is a classified state employee position, as well as the responsibilities of other staff members, whether it be there to kind of pre compliance managers that sit under Jen, and then there's the designees at the facilities as well. The funding is kind of rolled into their job duties. So no, there is never, to my knowledge, there's not a constant fight over that because those are embedded into the roles of existing employee positions.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: I mean, if somebody wanted to mess with or cut Priya at the state level, if there even were such a thing, you're not doing that with money, right? You're doing that with policy. You're no longer enforcing. You can't starve Priya by not right?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I mean, how could you? How could you? Eliminate the reporting.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But the reporting, they have to do the reporting to the Feds. If you're talking about the reporting, Kevin, that's to the Feds. There was part to do. That we're not changing. So I'm not sure what you're referring to with

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: the reporting. That's the only way you would eliminate it. If you're not collecting the data, if you're not reporting on it, that workload goes away. I thought we were considering asking That's a little to the Feds and to the state and to us in two years.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. But we're not at the reporting section of our language right now. They do have to report to the feds. So they're already doing the work. I

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: don't foresee this happening because of the state's values around PREA and not just the federal law, but what it represents. I think in a potential future, if anyone were to starve the resources for that, it would be through those positions that are existing that work solely on PREA compliance in which there is three, Jen and two people that sit under her. But I don't foresee that happening given the state's values and ongoing commitment to fulfilling the standards that PREA has set forward, even if that law is somewhat changed at the federal level.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: And to the degree that the reporting we've just been talking about all of this falls to everyone, right? So

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I don't know.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Is there such a thing as a job description? Like 5% is pre reporting. How does this fit into what they do?

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Probably not. I think that if you wanted to get a better idea as to how that might play out for positions that are not solely dedicated to prea, we could probably bring in an assistant superintendent who could speak about how that compliance rolls into their existing job duties. I think that would probably be the best person to represent what you're getting at, but I don't know that it exists in anyone's.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Yes, and my impression is that it is not onerous on any given one individual employee, but I don't know that.

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: I think it's pretty onerous on the assistant superintendents, but again, it's not solely their responsibility, although they do have a lot of work in that area. I know it does take up a lot of time just as part of the duties of that role as they typically serve as the kind of point person for that facility for greater compliance.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Okay, thanks.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So are we still at the point as a committee to delete within available appropriations? Okay. So, then the next question is actually listing out the standards in statute. And I think in this whole context, with tying it to 01/01/2024, and listing out the standards in statute. I think the committee feels, we can do a review of this in two years. So with that being in place, where people would actually put in the standards in statute?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Charlie convinced my English? Yeah.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Think James was, and we've got two that are not. Okay. So we'll keep that in statute standards and statute. And then let's go to the report to us. On January 15, the honor before and every year thereafter, DOC would submit a report and what would be in that report. Because the version that we have before us just says they're going to report back to us, and we're not clear what they're going to report back. In the bill that is drafted that we went through yesterday was we listed three things that they should report back. Training provided to staff, number of sexual assaults and types of sexual assault reported, and how many reports of sexual assaults were investigated and the outcome. And the testimony we received from the department was that it was quite onerous and time consuming. So the draft that's before us eliminates that. So if if DOC is to do a report back to us, what do they need to report on? Do they just report on what they currently need to report to the feds on free PREA compliance? Or do we just leave it at that and be clear in language if that's what the report needs to entail? Or do we add more items to that? Shawn.

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Kelly. So what do you guys compile every year? And what can you share with us of sexual violence? Like, what do you got? What do you have by the end of the year?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That is such a good

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: question for Jen. I am happy to reach out That's to fine. Send that information over. That would be super helpful.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Would they be available tomorrow? Jen? Jen and Josh and the commission. Well, I know

[Haley [Last Name Unknown] (Vermont Department of Corrections)]: that Josh is going to be here this afternoon. Okay. We will check with Jen. The commissioner's not here this afternoon.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He's not here, but we really need we're getting this bill out. We really need. We need DOC and it's and we also need well-being in the room, and I think we're working on that right now.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, I sort of agree with what you're thinking, chair, it's it's almost the act of the annual report that's as important as anything is if it gets it on the legislature's radar, it's going to be noticeable if it disappears to some extent on the federal level. Right. So just getting in the habit of checking in with existing data, I don't think they need to do any more work than just do what they're doing with the Feds. Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we could also subject this report to the review. In two years, you look at the this whole section, you look at two years. Yeah.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah. Agreed.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So am I hearing that the report back to the legislature would be the same report the DOC submits to PREA?

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So we would need language to make sure that that's what we're looking at. But you can't just say they show annual report and what you know, it's kind of blank terms of what they're gonna read. Okay, so we go with the version that does not list out additional information.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: But I still got Sweeney's question too about what's in the report. And

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I don't know if what is posted on the DOC website is exactly the same as reported to the federal government, but I'm happy to send you a link to the aggregated sexual abuse data and analysis, because I actually think it's really insightful. It notes the number of substantiated reports, who was involved in those reports. And I think most importantly, speaking to your questions, it outlines corrective actions that were taken in response to those. And it can be quite detailed around reviewing camera placement within communal areas, changing training standards for particular staff. And so I think this really speaks to the value of Priya. And so I'll send this link along, Galfetti, to take a look. Anything

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: else? So we've made three, four decisions. We took out the appropriations, kept it January '4, put the standards in statute, and the report would be to to the report would be the report that DOC submits to PREA, but we wanna know what's in that report.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yep. And?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And, yeah, we took out the appropriations.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: All right, the appropriate thing.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then we have a two year review. However, we're gonna phrase that out. If you say it's sunset, we're gonna have a trigger there for the legislature tonight. Does that make sense to folks? So Hillary will be in this afternoon. I'll give her a heads up on this. Tate and I will talk and can give her a heads up. Anything else on this right now? So we've got to shift gears a little bit. Do folks want to take a quick five minute break?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah, we'll do.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, take a quick break, folks. Come back. We're going to talk about those physicians for pretrial supervision being transferred

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: to