Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome folks, this is SAS Corrections. It is March, monopoly. Hayley, I may put you off for five minutes. Okay. That's fine. Why don't you just stay where you are? You can sit right there, Anne. We will spend the next five minutes or so with Representative Donahue from House Human Services Committee. They are looking at language in a bill that deals with juveniles, and the issue is seclusion of juveniles and within, I'm not sure if it's within facilities or within transports or what that whole structure is, but they were also reached out, Ann reached out to me yesterday about DOC for juveniles that may be held in our correctional facilities. By law, they are required to have sound and site separation if they're being held in one of our correctional facilities, which is basically seclusion. And they wanted to know how the practice of DOC intertwines or violates what they are looking at upstairs. So they had DOC in yesterday. Up at human services or you reached out to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: touch So,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anne, I'm going to turn it over to you if you can explain to us what you're looking at, where you are, and if you could introduce yourself.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: I've done it and I realized this is online, so I brought So paper we recognize that trying to say that the policy about dealing with children should apply in every location was not rational because Department of Corrections deals with a whole different environment and how they kind of can't do things. But we thought there'd be a real value for corrections and DCF to sort of meet together and talk about what are the things that DCF has some expertise in that they could discuss and say, these things something that would be viable when you have a minor in a sight and sound in terms of restraint seclusion so that they could kind of learn from each other and look at what they might be able to implement in a correctional facility for minors. So DCF was more than willing to do that. So I spoke yesterday with the Department of Corrections who said yes, they would be willing. They did the language that I had originally drafted with Legis Council. They actually had caught some excellent observations on the way it was worded. One is that the reference to the risk of psychological trauma didn't seem connected to restraint and seclusion. So it could have applied to falls or to practice which was not being kept. But also, the very astute point that to say prevent trauma, you don't have to prevent trauma from these things. Being imprisoned is traumatic. You want to minimize it. So, what are the practices that might be able to minimize it? So, we made those changes. And I did send a copy of the link to Haley and the Commissioner. So this is the current proposal. It's just about them meeting and bringing the report back regarding the use of restraint seclusion on minors who are detained in VDOC facilities and the potential means for reducing physical and psychological trauma from restraint seclusion. And then there's groups that would be providing input. They're not consult with, they don't have a say in what the report says, but just consult with the significant advocacy groups in that arena.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One question I have, and Haley, regarding the use of restraint and seclusion, when the foot, when the juveniles are held in DOC, we don't usually use that terminology, restraint and seclusion. That may be in your world upstairs, but

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: in DOC, we don't use that terminology. Think seclusion is not a common term that we use operationally. Restraints is one that we do use on a general practice to include for adult incarcerated people. So we can surmise that, but seclusion is not a word that we commonly use in operations, although I think makes sense.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What we do for juveniles who are held in a correctional facility, because there's no other placement for them. And they're under the age of 17? 18? For

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: the sight and sound, it depends. It's automatic for 17 and younger. 18 can become a little amorphous, depending on the interest of justice hearing.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. So say 17 and under, it's sight and sound separation. Yes. That's how the terminology is. It's not restraint, seclusion. So I don't know that. That's the only thing I want to

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: put out. My understanding is that the committee is probably interested in looking at physical restraints as opposed to the restraint of being in sight and sound. I could be wrong about that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: That's correct. But the issue of seclusion, which in some ways parallels solitary confinement, one of the things we recognize is if you have sight and sound so there's only one child there, that might be considered seclusion even. Or being if we're having a discussion as we speak about children in the secure residence being locked in their bedrooms and when is that appropriate or not. So as a discussion point, I don't think the term I think we know what we're talking about. They're gonna be discussing, well, recognition for sure that in corrections, you can't say that being in your cell or whatever is seclusion. That doesn't work in that setting. That's exactly to the point of why we wouldn't even think of saying, well, these rules should apply to corrections. It's not the same setting. But I think the term is general enough that they'll know what they are trying to talk about.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, that's fine. I just wanna be real clear. We don't use the terminology when juveniles are being held in a facility for restraint exclusion, the sight and sound. Yes.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: And if the report wanted DOC to include very comprehensive information about the impacts of sight and sound, I mean, I think that would be touched upon in this. But if the desire is to name that very explicitly, then we have no issue with that being added to the language.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sight and sound?

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Yeah, just wasn't sure if that was the intent of the originating committee. I think it

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: would be useful, but it was not the intent of what we were asking. We were basically, I mean, in kind of broad way, we're basically saying, okay, we just set up all these rules. Any of them work for you guys because it's a different environment? But maybe some of those would work to make things less dramatic. So it's more general conversation than something as specific as what is the impact of sighted support.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: And as a clarifying question, sorry, is the rules that you've set up are being applied to existing mechanisms for holding youth in secure DCF facilities. Yes. There's one. Red And Clover,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: we have exceptions to the general rules for Red Clover, recognizing there's more security. So even for TAP, we said, but there's a different rule for this setting in some certain situations.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, just curious. Yeah. I'm okay with the language. I think DOC is fine with the language. I just was concerned about that terminology, restraint and seclusion, but it would be DCF and DOC would be working together to submit this report, and they would need to consult with a work group. So are you establishing the work group or is the work group already established?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: No, we'd be establishing it, saying these folks would work together to be consulting or provide thoughts from their perspective so that it's not in isolation.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: A young adult who lived at being held. So that young adult who lived experience of being held, so it's one who has previously been held? Any thoughts? This is going to be offered. And what bill is this going to be in? Do you know?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: We're calling it our miscellaneous DCF bill. It's actually coming under, I think it's coming under a bill that is called unaccompanied homeless youth, but it's got multiple DCF pieces. Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions from the committee?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I spoke with Anne last night about it, and and it seemed really reasonable, and I liked where she was you know, where it was coming from. She came in when she was looking for you. So I I feel really good about it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are we okay with this? It would be important for the committee upstairs to know that we're okay with this because it does deal with DOC and it would need to be indicated in the floor report that we did look at this, that we're on board with the language, or not. So are we okay with the language, folks?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm missing what data will be included in the written report. Am I missing it in this?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: It's not requiring any data. It's a conversation between those two departments about what are practices that might be able to be made use of that corrections might benefit from. So, it's not data related at all.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, because when I read submit a written report to in the second line, that's what I'm referring to. Just a summary of what findings they made or what they might be able to do with the information. Lessons learned, shared, or whatever. Just privacy.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other folks? Are we okay with the language? Sure.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey]: I I have no issue.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Anne, thank you. We are supportive. We didn't take a vote. It's just I mean, we're always aware of this and we're secure. Thank

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue]: you very much. Thank you all for your

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: time. Thank you. Well, now we have you, Kelly. Okay. What I want to shift gears in is pretrial supervision. Back to that, our committee, our judiciary committee is on board with repealing that statute. But there is some base funding that continues. And it was 660,000. Yes. In FY twenty five. You hired three people and the money was to go to five folks.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Yes. That's accurate.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then, I mean, I I talked to representative squirrels, so their world of how they figure out the money is very different than how we think it through. So what we're looking at is instead of hiring seven new PMP folks, as well as the governor's proposed budget, that we keep the three that we have currently hired, and we cleared that up, that they were hired as PMP folks, not specific to pretrial supervision. So their jobs are still protected, which we wanted to make sure those three were And there's two slots that you have funding for that you have not hired. So the thinking is, could those two open slots, folks be hired so that those field offices would have the capacity to have a probation parole person in the court when the accountability docket gets expanded to their county. Sure. So, let me follow that.

[Rep. Conor Casey]: I

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: have a couple of thoughts here. For the record, my name is Alice M. The Director of Communications for DOC. First,

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey]: want

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: to take the opportunity to reiterate the department and the administration's position on the pretrial supervision program, in the sense that it was put into law in 2024, first stood up in January 2025. It's been operational for just over a year and hasn't fully had the chance to really take off as a program yet. And just seeing as this program was statutorily mandated and DOC put significant resources into, complying with the statute and standing up this program that we've been asked to, it is unfortunate to dismantle that in such a quick amount of time, seeing as there have been some early ones from the program. We're also seeing that it dovetails well with the accountability docket that is expanding potentially into other communities around the state and the kind of demonstrated success that having DOC in the room has provided. This has been a sentiment shared amongst multiple stakeholders. That being said, if the committee does decide that they want to repeal this statute, I think we've expressed previously that the three individuals who have been hired thus far have also taken on other job duties, especially in Burlington where the pre trial supervision officer has been present in the accountability courtroom. And we could easily follow a similar model in other communities through those two positions. The thing that I will note, and I think that the committee would intend for this regardless, is that DOC would need to maintain some discretion around the position description and job duties because the accountability docket is something that is, at least right now, functions as a temporary model and while in Burlington, it was more full time. In other communities, it's looking to be one or two days a week. And so that officer would certainly be fulfilling other duties as well, particularly if the docket is more temporary. What I will note, however, is that we're only providing two additional positions. There are three that are already embedded in PNP offices. I'm not sure whether the accountability docket model will move to Newport or St. Johnsbury. I don't know if it's appropriate. Can't really speak to that. However, there it would be very challenging and I don't think feasible to set up the other two positions so that they were to essentially move as the docket does. So if the committee's intent and desire was that this would be something we could do for more than two additional dockets, the department may not be able to fulfill that with the five positions, which is where those other seven positions may potentially come into play, particularly if the committee were interested in expanding on the successes that we've seen thus far with the embedded court liaison that DOC has fulfilled and accountability docket in Burlington.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the thinking is right now that it would the accountability docket would be set up in Rutland. Yes. So we were very clear when we put out the language for those five positions back for pretrial. It was a PMP officer. So we would ensure that it's still classified as a PMP officer. So it gives that flexibility. I wanna make sure that I mean, I would think it would still be in play because that means go for five. Yes. So if you knew by the end of this session when everything ties up, you knew that Rutland was definitely going to do the accountability docket.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: And it launched this week just to confirm. And the docket launched this week. It did launch this week for sure.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then that gives a heads up that you can hire someone within the Rutland area for that particular docket.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Yes. At the moment, we are using existing resources and positions to fulfill that. Can you absorb that right now in the field office? In Rutland, we're making it work. I don't think the same could be said for every other field office. And I I can't say which ones can and which ones can't right now, but that is true.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it you still have two openings. Yeah. So you could plug that in. Yes. And so we're already in March. Say there's another docket that gets established through the summer, say July, June or July at the earliest. Okay. And say it's in Bennington County.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Would the Bennington field office be able to absorb that? Or would you have to hire someone there? I can't speak to that with certainty, but based on previous testimony from our deputy director of field services, Gary Marble, he did state that particularly in Bennington, the kind of complexity of cases, as is around the state, but is rising, so are the caseload numbers. And it might be more challenging for that field office.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you'd have the ability to hire a person. You would. Okay. So say, say Bennington and I'm only pointing this out. Yes. Hypothetical. So say Bennington is the next one, and that opens up, say, July. So you would know one of those positions is going to Bennington. So say in the fall, come fall, October, November, another county, it could be Wyndham County or it could be Windsor County. What they're looking at is Rutland, Bennington, Wyndham, Windsor and Washington. Okay? So say it's either Wyndham or Windsor. Windsor has two field offices. Wyndham has one. And the Windsor field office is right near the Wyndham town line county line. Would you need another position? You've got three field offices right there. Would you need another field position?

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: It were to expand to Wyndham or Windsor.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can't see And it would be in October. I can't see it happening.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Yeah. I mean, it's challenging to say, because we're really speaking in hypotheticals right And I don't know how many days a week that the docket would function. I think there are a lot of things that can't be determined on the spot in terms of what resources would be needed because of the intensity of the court and then where those resources would need to be applied for DOC, I would be uncomfortable making those statements on the record.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because what I'm getting at is you got two positions available. You know if you open up the next dock, it's in Bennington, But, you know, there's a high case load. You're definitely gonna need someone there. So that leaves one position open. It depends where where they decide to go in the fall. They could go to Washington County. They could go to Windsor. They could go to Window. And you still have that one position available. So then we're back in session in January with budget adjustments, where you may find, well, this is really working and we wanna expand it. Say we didn't get into Washington County, we wanna expand it to Washington County, but we're gonna need another position. You've got the ability of BAA to make that adjustment. That's what I'm laying out for the committee to think of the time frame here. Because we don't wanna hamper you, but you do have two openings right now. Does that make sense in the thinking for folks? Joe,

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey]: what was the other the other, you know, thing we we've heard is that, you know, in this county you know, Bennington County has less than 40,000 people in it, so it's less than a quarter of Chittenden. So these accountability ports are probably going be in just a much smaller scale and shorter duration than they are in larger counties. It's just the way it goes. So so the need for, somebody to be there from DOC isn't, you know, probably gonna be at that long duration or not with regularity. So that's right. Didn't get a period

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: of We're

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: in flux right now in terms of knowing how the accountability dockets are gonna work, how long they're gonna be. The thinking is one day a week. In some counties like Bennington might be two days a week, because the caseloads are so high. But once that stabilizes, do we even keep that practice in place? And if we don't, we'll find new people.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: That's true. And I think with the success that we've seen in Burlington, by having that PNP, was pre trial supervision officer, but probation and parole officer embedded in the court, there are certain aspects of that that we'd like to maintain moving forward, which is why those resources are so critical.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. And maybe come next January, we'll say, wait a minute, you need a PDP person in all the courts, regardless of the accountability document. Because we have the track record. It sets you up much more solid to argue for more staff. That's kind of

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Yeah. Understood. And that's a conversation we've had as well with 5th Floor and the secretary. And they seem supportive of that given the demonstrated success in Burlington. It would be easier to stand that up with the current framework for pretrial. And just wanted to reiterate that's our position, but understood and appreciate the discussion. Thank you, Haley.

[Rep. Conor Casey]: Yeah, was circling on the same. Agree with Haley. I think it is unfortunate we're kind of in this position because I imagine if we had rewound this a year or so, DOC may have put those positions in different places knowing that there wasn't help coming in the other way. And a lot of this is just like caseload numbers. Those caseloads are so high.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Caseload in the court, you mean?

[Rep. Conor Casey]: Caseload in the field, right? But we could be conflating the pretrials in the accountability court a bit too much. It's when you heard Gary testify, I think he was saying, it might not even be the pretrial person who's in the court, right? So, we got off to a bad start. We don't want go towards the bad end. And I think I wouldn't feel right to spend the money on more pretrial supervision officers. I'm very sympathetic with the caseloads. And I think we just need to give DOC flexibility. So I guess the question I have is like. If you got two more positions coming your way, are the PMP positions the best way to give you the flexibility to help out when you need in different areas? Or would you be better off with a different type of position, a new type of position? Or something more based in central office that has their title they could travel a bit? Yeah.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: That's a good question. And I think could probably use some further discussions before saying like, Oh, this

[Rep. Conor Casey]: However, is

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: given kind of the current infrastructure that was set up, having those officers And in hindsight, I'm very glad that the decision was to allocate those new positions as probation and parole officers instead of pretrial supervision positions. That would have put us in a very difficult position. But I think having those positions right now as the probation and parole officers does provide us enough flexibility, especially if we're talking about the kind of work that's going on in the field and the role that they've been playing in the courts as kind of court liaison.

[Rep. Conor Casey]: I mean, I have no doubt you'd use all 12 positions, right? You would use them. I think doing it under the pretense as a pretrial, to me, it just feels dishonest because we're not gonna get those numbers.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: Yeah, understood. And I think that would likely need to be restructured. It seems right now, based on what has been successful and where the state is looking to move, that those positions would look a little bit different in terms of their base job functions. But there would still be the flexibility needed for the future.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thanks, Cindy.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are there questions? So the committee would support even the funding in for those two new position two positions. Because I've gotta relay that to both representative Luneau as well as representative Spoer. Because they're they've gotta get the budget out this next week. Not this week, but next week. So they need to know.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I liked where Conor was told that if if those are not the right positions to add because they're not flexible enough, how long would it take your team to come back with an answer that says, no, we would prefer something

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: else? You know, I think for the functions that we're describing right now, a probation and parole officer really would be the most suitable option for that. This is different, but we do have a very flexible team in the central office that provides primarily support to the facilities and hospital coverage support. I don't know that this type of model would make sense. I think that the probation parole officer that does. That being said, we only have those five positions. So it's not something that could be applied equitably statewide as a result.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it sets the groundwork. That's what I'm looking at. It at least sets the groundwork so that come January, you might be in a better position to advocate for more staff. I want to make sure you have enough staff. I want to make sure that the classification is PMP officer that flex. Yeah.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: And we appreciate that. And we also really greatly appreciate the committee's commitment to maintaining those five positions, particularly the three that are already filled by DOC employees. Much appreciated. Anything else?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I will relay to both the chair of judiciary and representative Squirrel that we're supportive. We need to keep those two currently open position with the funding intact so they can hire two folks going forward. Makes sense?

[Rep. Conor Casey]: Great.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Haley. So at 10:30, John is due in here. Have you heard anything from John yet?

[Rep. Conor Casey]: Yeah. Good. Hello.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey]: All right.

[Haley Sommer, Director of Communications, Vermont DOC]: I've turned on to send you to share at 10:55, but I'll be here before then. Okay, great.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're So still on YouTube. Let's can we kick off of YouTube