Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Troy Headrick]: Hey,

[Alice M. Emmons]: welcome, folks. House Corrections and Institutions Committee, it is Wednesday, March 11. It's '11, and we are working on H-two 94, which is dealing with teleflictations within DOC. We have with us our lunch counsel with a new draft. It is draft 3.1. Thank you, John. Welcome. And give us a walk through on what has changed, what's been added.

[Troy Headrick]: Let's do it.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Let's do it.

[John Gray]: So John Gray, office of Blinden Center Council. Good to

[Troy Headrick]: see you

[John Gray]: guys, despite my earlier proclamations. I'm gonna screen share.

[James Gregoire]: He's on YouTube now.

[Kevin Winter]: How do I feel about that?

[John Gray]: You weren't part of the you weren't here to be addressed. H two ninety four. So what you'll recall from before she took last week off, There had been proposals to add in a wage impact report to tweak some of the language related to capturing kind of non financial benefits in the analysis of telecommunications evaluation, and then adding in a stakeholder engagement. So that's what you're gonna see in this draft. I've slightly restructured the draft. Previously, this was one section that was just the telecommunications evaluation report, and it included the intent language in that section as a subsection. Now because there are really two reports included, they're conceptually distinct reports. I've separated these out into just different sets of sections. The intent language can be thought of as broadly applicable to the bill itself, I think. Because each of these, creating conditions of incarceration necessary for rehabilitation, mitigating disruptions to connections, divesting from the for profit prison industry, and informing professional policy decision making with data and agency expertise, I think all of those are equally applicable to both reports as we'll come to. So no reason that that needs to be included exclusively with the telecommunications evaluation. So section one is exactly as you've seen before, it just now has its own section header. Section two is the telecommunications evaluation report. All changes are shown in highlight. So in the first instances, the sets of examinations, evaluations within the report are exactly the same as we discussed before the break, but on page two, you're gonna start seeing some changes. So among the measures considered for cost analysis of different telecommunications service models being evaluated. One of these was a more generic call out for under subdivision F starting on line five, any anticipated benefits or savings. You may recall that before the break, we talked about some of the broadness, the breadth of the preexisting language, which I believe was societal, behavioral, or public safety impacts, which was quite broad. There was some concern about both the breadth and also its specificity. So whether or not it made clear that security and safety concerns were supposed to be considered both within and outside of correctional facilities. So this language tries to address that, and it tries to pick up some of the directives that DOC was mentioning. You may recall that you heard from Haley Somers some specific things that the department would look to if they were considering public safety and other impacts. Those things would fit within this language. And so the proposed language here that tries to be generic but more closely aligned with what the committee was seeking is in anticipated benefits or savings, including reasonably ascertainable behavioral security or safety impacts, both inside and outside state correctional facilities. So it makes clear the locations you're looking to, and it tries to focus more acutely on security and safety, which I think were the concerns that folks were largely coalescing around. I know that there was some discussion of isolation within correctional facilities, would be captured under this behavioral callout. So this is the proposed language to address that previously quite broad language, but happy to hear if folks have questions on this piece.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So how do we look at it outside of the correctional facility? Are we looking at that through the lens of the family members who have access?

[John Gray]: That's how I heard this.

[Alice M. Emmons]: And not the general population of us.

[Troy Headrick]: I think I would classify this sort of circles of support. How right. We're in I'm anticipating that increased connectivity is gonna have an impact both inside and outside, outside on the people who wish to stay connected

[Haley Somers]: to Yeah. Those

[Alice M. Emmons]: So when you say because this would be both for the behavioral, security, or safety impacts, which is very clear inside the facility. That's really clear. But when you say outside the facility, what are we encompassing there? And if the intent is just for that circle of support for the inmate?

[Troy Headrick]: I think I think Kids Apart program would probably have their fingers on that pulse of, are the kids and the family members that they're attempting to stay connected, keep connected to the incarcerated individual feeling an impact based on more access to, in this case, telecommunication.

[John Gray]: So another way to do this, if you wanna be specific, is make clear that that is the explicit directive. This could be changed to be including reasonably ascertainable impacts on behavior, safety, and supports for incarcerated persons or something like that. It might be a cleaner way and more direct way. It just depends on the kind of guidance that you're trying to provide, because here we're just talking about including language. So this is just giving an indication of what you guys want to see coming back. I've tried to track it broad enough that they can include what they would like but should pay attention to these particular factors.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So this is what would go into a report. This isn't what's going to to actual statute.

[Troy Headrick]: For sure.

[John Gray]: Yeah. This is just the

[Alice M. Emmons]: the commit.

[John Gray]: The cost analysis.

[Alice M. Emmons]: This is what this we're not amending the green books. Okay? This is what's only going to be coming back

[Haley Somers]: in a report.

[John Gray]: So

[Troy Headrick]: Something around the sustenance of support systems, something like that. I don't know if we want

[John Gray]: to do improvement, but sustenance.

[Troy Headrick]: I don't know if there's

[John Gray]: a better word than that.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Continued You're smart, John. You're speaker.

[John Gray]: I appreciate it. I feel so

[Alice M. Emmons]: It's not the world of finances. It's coward. It's corrections. World.

[John Gray]: Yeah. I think we can do something about including reasonably ascertainable impacts on behavior, security, safety, and maintenance of support systems or something along those lines.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah, get close. If not there.

[Kevin Winter]: It would be lovely, if there's time, for that to reduce with cynicism.

[John Gray]: Recidivism? Yeah.

[Kevin Winter]: I mean, that's what I consider outside. Yes, the cohesive

[Alice M. Emmons]: Cigarettes.

[Kevin Winter]: I'd like to see returns dropping because the networks are maintained.

[John Gray]: So if there's appetite for that, that's the program recidivism rates.

[Troy Headrick]: That's

[Alice M. Emmons]: hard to quantify, but it was being I mean, recidivism rate, the definition is going to change, which we're gonna have an update on that this afternoon. But there's so many factors that play into that. It's not one specific thing or not, more tools, more

[John Gray]: Yeah, I think if there's a practical constraint that you run into, and this could occur for multiple of these. We talked before about the timeline, right? You're getting this report in advance of next letter set of session, But you wouldn't know some of these things except across a multi year process of evaluation. So that's also why the reasonably ascertainable qualifier is important, because you're not gonna be getting back things that can't reasonably be. Anything else on this one? So John can go board Smith. Is there appetite for the recidivism rates? Sorry, just some. I'm not seeing it.

[Alice M. Emmons]: People are quiet. That always makes me nervous. Seeing it.

[John Gray]: Okay. I'll keep going then.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Okay.

[John Gray]: We have a new subsection b starting on 14. This is your stakeholder engagement piece, and these are the recommendations that representative Headrick provided to me. So starting on line 14, in conducting its evaluation of options for providing no cost telecommunication services, DOC shall, when practicable, consult with the following stakeholders, Department of Public Service, that'd be utilities and the like, opposite the state treasurer, JFO, one or more nonprofit providers of corrections telecommunications services with operational experience. On page three, representatives of families of incarcerated promoters or organizations representing those families, community based reentry service providers, justice reform organizations, the Prison Research and Innovation Network, and any other stakeholders or subject matter experts identified by the commissioner as necessary for the evaluation. Again, there is a qualifier as practicable. So while you do see that this is a long list, it still leaves it to DOC to determine whether or not it is reasonable to engage with all of these folks. But it supplies some guidance as to, hey, these are the people to look to.

[Alice M. Emmons]: How do we include the treasurer, state treasurer?

[Troy Headrick]: No. Guess there was some sort of in my head, I had this, this is important. We're going to fund this.

[John Gray]: Yeah, similar to how

[Troy Headrick]: but I'm not married to it.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I can understand. It wasn't the Department of Public Safety. It was PUC, wasn't it?

[John Gray]: That's public service, right?

[Haley Somers]: Public

[John Gray]: Utilities. PUC, if you want to

[Alice M. Emmons]: It's not under the Department of Public Service. I mean, they're their own end. Well, the public service is there for the rate payers supposedly. PUC regulates.

[Troy Headrick]: So PUC might be better here.

[James Gregoire]: Rather than the Department of Public Service.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Yeah, it's PUC that

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: sets the rates. That's simple enough.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Yeah, it's gotta be PUC.

[Troy Headrick]: And I'm not married to the treasurer.

[Haley Somers]: I'm not, I'm

[Alice M. Emmons]: a treasurer. So this is in conducting the evaluations for providing no costs, which ties into a, representative families, so we understand that connection, based reentry service providers. What justice reform organizations are out there?

[Troy Headrick]: Well, I mean, there are tons. You saw ACLU in there. You've moved to prisoners' rights advocates. I think keeping it broad is And again, I'm not the big ones on here for me are, let's get a handle on reentry providers and what it would be like to gauge an impact that this would have on reentry. I think print is an obvious one and easy for us. And families, I think that's an important consideration here. Those are the big ones for me. But then there's some obvious ones as as we're looking to potentially move to a nonprofit or no cost calls system. There's probably some folks here who should weigh in. JFO is certain.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Are there folks on this list? Let's not all be quiet here.

[James Gregoire]: I think it's solid. I could lose treasurer. Yeah. I don't know why the treasurer has to If the treasurer is on there, why don't we adding everybody in state government? It's like that seems like a little kill. I agree. Strike it.

[Alice M. Emmons]: And change the public safety

[John Gray]: to Yep.

[James Gregoire]: Same to you. See, that's all. So 18 goes. Line 18.

[Troy Headrick]: And I do I like the qualifier here as practical.

[James Gregoire]: Yeah. The way it's written?

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah. Correct. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Practical. Practical. That allows flexibility. Lock I

[Troy Headrick]: can yeah. I agree with that.

[John Gray]: Okay. Subsection C, this is on line eight on page three. DOC shall provide to the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee for the committee's analysis and input first draft of the report on or before 09/15/2026, and to an updated draft of the report on or before 11/15/2026. Those were the dates we discussed before the break. I will note I waffled on what to do with the qualifier for sub two updated draft. I initially had near final draft, but I wasn't sure if that was really fair or So I tried to use language suggesting there needs to have been progress made and hope that folks take the cue from the fact that the actual deadline is two weeks away to to constitute sufficient incentive for an updated draft to be a near final draft.

[Alice M. Emmons]: If that works. Shawn, is

[James Gregoire]: Troy, so with the the November 15 date, I'm just wondering why I guess that's not to us.

[John Gray]: No. It's not us.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Because the final report is due December 1 to us, the whole committee, this committee. So this is to keep is to keep them aware the legislature is looking at. So you've got to report to joint justice off session.

[James Gregoire]: And okay. So so so you think that the so that us not being in session is okay to get this December 1. Right. That's what I'm getting at.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Right. You've got joint justice who's gonna keep an eye on it to make sure they're doing the work. That that okay.

[James Gregoire]: That's you know, I didn't know if you wanted it to be, like, January 15, though we're in session, and they can No. Because

[Alice M. Emmons]: if there's any legislation that's needed

[James Gregoire]: We wanna kinda get

[Alice M. Emmons]: gotta get your draft request in. You can wait until the January 15 because that's beyond the date of getting your drafting request.

[John Gray]: Exactly. I I would love if we could put January 15 for these because it gives everyone more time to supply the reports, but it creates some issues with meeting drafting deadlines. And additionally, it often creates holiday work for folks too. And

[Alice M. Emmons]: you got a brand new biennium, so you got new members.

[John Gray]: Okay, thanks.

[Alice M. Emmons]: And old members may not be there.

[Conor Casey]: I think you need to add out of state private contractor to the list of stakeholders there, because if you're going to extend this benefit to people in state, you'd probably need to do it out of state too, right? So when you need to consult a core civic to see how they would make this happen.

[Alice M. Emmons]: You're B. You're back on B.

[John Gray]: Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So add a new stakeholder, which would be CoreCivic?

[Conor Casey]: Yeah. I mean, it's like you kind of have to, don't you? Unless you're just planning to Well, do this

[Alice M. Emmons]: this is evaluating the impacts of current Well, it says communication services to inmates in state correctional facilities. That's what it's on page one, section two. The report is evaluating options for providing no cost telecommunication services to inmates in state correctional facilities. So that is saying folks who are housed in our correct facilities.

[Troy Headrick]: It's not Change that to under supervision of the Department of Corrections.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Well, you can't say under supervision. Then you've got field service. You've got probation, Incarcerated?

[Troy Headrick]: Incarcerated by the Department of Corrections.

[Alice M. Emmons]: You want to include the out of state folks?

[Troy Headrick]: I mean, right, you know me well enough to know that if we're creating this benefit for unshakable folks, it's got to be a benefit.

[Alice M. Emmons]: What was the testimony in terms of how telecommunications is provided to folks in Mississippi? It's the same as what it is in facilities?

[Troy Headrick]: I don't think we've got

[John Gray]: a whole lot of testimony to say we never go

[Alice M. Emmons]: through That question was asked. I do

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: was asked, but it was never answered.

[John Gray]: Yeah. I

[Conor Casey]: mean don't think they

[Alice M. Emmons]: could give us specific data. So we've gotta flag that.

[Conor Casey]: I would prioritize the people at the state because they're further from their families and needed more. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons]: We gotta talk to Hayla when she comes back.

[Troy Headrick]: But instead of it qualifying this as in state, do we qualify this as anybody incarcerated by the Vermont Department of Correction?

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: I mean, that sounds good, Troy. Personally, I didn't read it to think that it didn't include our folks in Mississippi.

[Troy Headrick]: It could simply does. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I go to page one.

[John Gray]: Yeah. I'm on I'm on

[Alice M. Emmons]: 9 15. And I read that

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: line, but that to me, that just wasn't a big picture. It only includes

[John Gray]: our six

[Alice M. Emmons]: It does. Because it says state correctional facilities. That's only ours. It's not we don't have a state correctional facility in Mississippi. We contract our company for it, but we don't have that. It's not a state correctional facility.

[John Gray]: So let's do what Troy said. So I can make that update, but it also sounds like you guys won't take your

[Alice M. Emmons]: I wanna hear from DOC in terms of how how they're handling phone calls now with CoreCivic. I'm not opposed to booting everything, but I think we need to know that background right now.

[John Gray]: Do you want me to hold off on adding that until you've heard that?

[Alice M. Emmons]: Haley, she had to go where? Downstairs?

[John Gray]: Yeah, she just had to go to center.

[Troy Headrick]: She said she was coming back.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Yeah, she'll come back. Why don't we just kind of keep it where it is at this point just to wait till Hailey comes back? And I don't want to make a change without knowing what part of doctor's system.

[John Gray]: So the next piece is a new report

[Alice M. Emmons]: to this craft. Before we go there, did we want to include in its evaluation to include more civic? Is that what you were also

[Conor Casey]: As far as the stakeholders? Yeah. I think, yeah, they need to if they yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So did you get that one, John?

[John Gray]: Did she want a specific call out for a specific organization? CoreCivic? I'm not familiar.

[Alice M. Emmons]: But We contract with CoreCivic.

[Troy Headrick]: Any contracted facilities currently?

[James Gregoire]: Well, yeah, I think it's gotta be broad.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Well, we gotta be careful because we have some folks who are in interstate compacts. We gotta be careful with that because because they are housed maybe in a federal system or some of them may be housed in a maximum security system because we don't have that level of security. So we have a few folks who are in the interstate compact, which is kind of a contract with other facilities.

[James Gregoire]: But not in Mississippi.

[Alice M. Emmons]: But not Mississippi. Welcome to the world of corrections. Pull off one layer of the onion, and it opens up another thing.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: How many people are part of that interstate compact?

[Alice M. Emmons]: Oh, I can't remember.

[Kevin Winter]: We're

[Alice M. Emmons]: very small. It's twenty twenty five. It's very, very small. It's new. Yeah. But it's part of an interstate compact, so we could have someone from another state house here in exchange.

[Troy Headrick]: Gotcha.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: So it's different than our contract with CoreCivic. So can I ask a question? How does those 20 or 25 people that are part of that interstate compact, are they included in this?

[Alice M. Emmons]: Think we'd have to understand what hearing

[Troy Headrick]: you I can't remember if they're subject to that clause that requires And we know it's not working at Mississippi anyway, but anything Vermonters get, out of state folks get.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I don't think so because they would be under if they're in a federal facility, they're under the federal. If they're interstate compact, I would think they would be under that particular states.

[Troy Headrick]: I agree.

[Alice M. Emmons]: And then the person that from that other state that comes here because it's kind of a swap, they would be, I think, more subject to us. But that would be something to ask Galfetti. So you want only wanna hit CoreCivic. I mean, just lay out the name CoreCivic because that's who we contract with in Mississippi.

[John Gray]: So I can just add them directly. As a stakeholder. And the other thing I would note is that on page three, what you see here, line six, sub nine, if you included that, I think it makes clear that you're trying to hit folks of that kind. And the commissioner, if certain parties are necessary for the evaluation, they're gonna include.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Necessarily.

[John Gray]: I mean, under nine, they

[Alice M. Emmons]: You would hope.

[John Gray]: Meant to, but yes.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I think it would be good to lay on Pacific because then it's a flag that we have 150 people right now who are housed down there because we don't have the capacity for them in our current facilities. Simple enough. And they are under our practices down there. They're not under the state of Mississippi law or CoreCivic, they're under what we provide. The

[John Gray]: next piece is on page three. If you are new section three, this is the wage impact evaluation. So starting on line 14, same due date on or before 12/01/2026, DOC shall provide to the same committees of jurisdiction a written report evaluating the impacts of current wages for inmates in state correctional facilities. And I don't know if you would wanna make the same update to that lead in language if you're making But it for depending on whatever happens there, you may want an update.

[Alice M. Emmons]: They have it just paid for them down in Mississippi. Don't think so.

[Troy Headrick]: I don't think it's they they work, but I don't think it work. Yeah.

[Conor Casey]: They

[James Gregoire]: Imagine what the hourly there.

[Alice M. Emmons]: It would be the same here because it's under our jurisdiction. Yeah, it's under us. It's not under Mississippi because it's not a state facility.

[John Gray]: I'm sorry, Kevin. The report would evaluate the impacts of those current wages and would specifically on line 18, collect and analyze the current wage level for inmates, so just get that data. Two, identify the categories of labor performed by inmates that support department operations, those are things like food and custodial services, and then estimate the cost to the state of providing those same services, but using state employees or contracted vendors, putting wage and up the cost. So this is a consideration for you subbed out those services that are currently being facilitated at Florida wages, presumably through inmates.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So there, you're only looking at work that is performed to support the department.

[Kevin Winter]: That's right.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So you're not looking at license plates.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah, I'm wondering. I think we should include that. Any work performed at some language

[Alice M. Emmons]: We used to do a lot more than just license plates.

[Troy Headrick]: And so using language that I have in 09/19. So potential

[John Gray]: update to that,

[Troy Headrick]: Or do you just want to look at it? H919 is a short form. Do you want

[John Gray]: to just refer to Yeah, I can look at that. 919? Yeah, that's my balance. On page four, assess the relationship between current wage levels and participation in facility work programs, considering the ability of work program participants to meet basic needs, purchase commissary items and telecommunication services. So I take this to mean it's kind of asking an incentive question. Do folks participate in these programs if the wages that they're earning are or aren't able to support them in purchasing or meeting basic needs. That's how I understood the request. I'm happy to pause on this one because I'm seeing some confused

[Alice M. Emmons]: Let's really read this language and understand it.

[John Gray]: Another way to put it, I don't know if it's what the committee is looking for, but assess the incentive impacts to engage in facility work programs given different weight levels, etcetera. That's all the

[Kevin Winter]: way that I've It defines, in line five, meet basic needs.

[John Gray]: Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I wonder if on line five, considering the ability of work program participants to meet their basic needs and ability to purchase necessary items kind of defines the fatter.

[John Gray]: Oh, I thought it was the same thing, but I I'm happy to add those were I don't see those as substantively different, but if if you guys find it clear, I'm happy to do that.

[Troy Headrick]: I'm reading this in conjunction with four because four has some other stuff that is equally important for me to measure, especially with maintenance of family contacts, especially victim restitution and support obligations. I'm thinking specifically about somebody who becomes incarcerated that had obligations to provide support to family or kids. So all of this is I'm not suggesting we combine it. But I'm saying when you add four, as we're considering three, it becomes a more complete picture for me, and the need to change anything in three is less important for me.

[John Gray]: Yeah. I mean, again, suggestions I had taken from Doctor. Of Headrick. So, I don't know what the committee as a whole is hoping what kind of information you're trying to gather.

[Conor Casey]: Basic needs, right? So if we keep in mind that corrections is coming up with this report, if I'm at the OC, we already meet their basic needs, free square meals. We give them you know, certain amount of telephone calls to keep in touch with their family. So I don't know if basic needs captures what we want to say here.

[John Gray]: Mean, you could just cut because I think the same concerns are captured by the purchase commissary items and telecommunication services. In part, I say that because I think the thought is exactly what you say. If the claim is just the basic needs are already met, the argument that you guys have been having is that you really have to use your money to purchase commissary items and the like to go beyond what's provided by the facilities, in which case considering the ability of work program participants to purchase commissary items in telecommunication services captures the same thing I think you're trying to get at. I mean, maybe the point here is the Mead Basic Needs has a political feel to it in a way or or is clearly raising kind of political concerns. And I guess you could ask the question whether or not you want to do that or if you just want a clear directive. You know?

[Alice M. Emmons]: Be a loophole.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah. I'm gonna strike that. And just keep it to purchase commissary.

[John Gray]: Don't know if that's all. Yes.

[James Gregoire]: So this, like, got me basic needs and Yep. Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons]: You guys, again, the gist of markup Took you a while, but you get it.

[John Gray]: Before you

[Haley Somers]: I'm gonna keep beating it.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah. Gotta do.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Well, what happens on the floor? Yeah. You need time to stand the line rich.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah, to that end, and my attention was distracted, so I apologize. I'm retreading ground. But the first clause there up until the comma, it makes a lot of sense to me if we say we're assessing the relationship between current wage levels and the ability to purchase commissary items, telecommunication services. The participation in facility work programs confuses it for me. It makes it seem like we're talking about the relationship between the wage levels and participation. That

[John Gray]: is the way that I understood it, but maybe I just don't have enough policy background to understand. I had taken it to be like, are folks motivated? Could you change the participation levels with wage levels, basically? And so is your ability to purchase commissary items and the like factored into your determination as a person in an incarceration?

[Troy Headrick]: Because I thought I understood from testimony before that work programs are basically fully subscribed. There's nothing else to do. You might as well make a book. Is that not true?

[Alice M. Emmons]: There's not much work programs in there. You're basically doing laundry. You're working in the kitchen.

[John Gray]: Custodial. License

[Alice M. Emmons]: License plates. Plates. I don't know if they even include them to do any maintenance at all, like out in the grounds or anything. I don't think so. It's pretty limited.

[John Gray]: I I would agree if you if the committee thinks that what you're trying to get at here is the relationship between levels and ability to purchase. If you're both trying to draw that out as just we're gonna make you say this thing and then also have data on it. You could eliminate that participation and just say, assess the relationship between parenting age levels and the ability to purchase commissary hearings and telecommunication services. It's a different consideration.

[Troy Headrick]: Yes. Well, Troy, I guess I'll go to you. But the participation part of that clause online for feels like a way of making this feel relevant to DOC. You guys need to care about this too, because maybe you have unfilled positions that would be filled if you paid people properly. Testimony has indicated that that's not the case. I do want to hold on to the point you made. Often it's indicated that How did you state it? That there's nothing else to do, so your life will make $0.65 an hour. If you add it to that, the fact that it's not going be $0.65 an hour, but it's going to be a different wage, an improved wage, Does it interrupt or does it impact that dynamic? Yeah, so it's all of it for me. If you raise the wage level to these jobs that are already fully subscribed or maybe they're even oversubscribed. I don't know. They're gonna continue to be fully or oversubscribed. I I remember asking the question of wouldn't it be possible to we have this many of hours of work needed. We have this many people to do it. Can we just divide it up amongst those who want it? So instead of five people working twenty hours a week, you might have 20 people working five hours a week. And the answer was, yeah, we could do that. We didn't go much further than that shit. James? Actually, they just had a conversation that I wanted to mention.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Okay. Kevin?

[Kevin Winter]: And do we whatever the wage is, do we want to somehow understand that they're paying child support before they buy honey buns? Or is that none of our business?

[Troy Headrick]: As laid out originally, this improved wages and created funds. One would be a restitution fund, one would be a savings upon release fund or family support fund, and one would be for use in common.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So I don't know right now, Igor, what happens with someone who has child support payments. Mean, they're not making anything at all.

[Troy Headrick]: The original bill contemplated that, though.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I mean, right now,

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: that is increased.

[Alice M. Emmons]: They're not paying child support right now because they're not having an income.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah. I was just

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: gonna say they do not from my understanding from what I remember, they do not pay child support with their deals. You know? Well, they

[Alice M. Emmons]: don't give any income coming in. So, you know, that's where the families get slammed when someone becomes incarcerated. Well,

[Kevin Winter]: I asked the question because and we have taken out meeting basic needs, but if the concept is we need to increase the wage, then I would think that you would want that wage to go to appropriate priorities.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah. And that's what's tried to capture that in four.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Maybe we flip four and three.

[Troy Headrick]: So

[Alice M. Emmons]: three becomes the one about family contacts and support obligations. And then four becomes the assessment of the wage variance.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: Yeah. And I I think that's important because the person that's probably exiting the facility is going to be dependent on family that's out there, especially if they have children, so keeps them in a stable situation so that when they reenter society set up.

[John Gray]: Flipping three and four helps cabin three.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Do we keep, in the current three, do we keep participation in facility work programs? For Brian's concern, bringing up that the wage levels is about purchasing commissary items and telecommunications services. Is it also if you have a higher wage level, is there going to be more participation in the work programs? James?

[Troy Headrick]: Well, I I like I don't know if I know about the wording, Vanessa, but I like the idea of even if it's fully prescribed, are more people volunteering for it? And that kind of gives us some good information about Well, it gives us good information.

[John Gray]: I have a proposal then that maybe can do all of the things, which would be happy. So we flip three and four. We can cut to meet basic needs or meet basic needs from existing three. We could cut participation in facility work programs. So three would now read assess the relationship between current wage levels and the ability to purchase commissary items and telecommunication services. And then four would become, estimates the impact of wage adequacy improvements on outcomes for inmates, such as maintenance of family contacts and clients with restitution support obligations, reentry success, and participation in facility work programs. It compares different wage impacts. So you build in the participation in facility work programs as one of the improvements in outcomes for inmates that flow from wage advocacy and programs. So

[Alice M. Emmons]: you put that at the end of the old four.

[John Gray]: Yes. After reentry success. Two, three. Exactly. Exactly. Although I think the need to flip them is lessened now, but since I've already accepted it, I'm gonna flip them anyway. Just a sec.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Speaking of somebody we need to talk to, she just walked back.

[Troy Headrick]: Welcome back.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Okay, well you do that. I'd love to hear. You're such a good person.

[Haley Somers]: Yes, you are.

[Troy Headrick]: You often have to remind people of it.

[John Gray]: I know they're all in here right now, too.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Ladybugs. Whatever they are.

[Kevin Winter]: This was the question we needed to ask.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Hey. I know. I wanna give them the signal. I'm sorry. I thought I told

[John Gray]: them. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: Someone pipe my eye.

[Alice M. Emmons]: They're not gonna do anything. I can't get them right. It's not this thing. Yeah.

[John Gray]: They're saying

[James Gregoire]: signal.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Can't butt. We went to get you.

[John Gray]: That's hilarious. So, Haley, we have

[Alice M. Emmons]: a draft of 3.1 on H two ninety. Does someone have a paper copy that could come into her quickly at all? Copy is

[John Gray]: the paper.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I have a copy that you sent. So Haley, we have a question on I'm going to go to page one, run 15. This is a report that's due for evaluating options of no cost telecommunications services to inmates in state correctional facilities. So that only includes inmates who are housed in our facility, not Mississippi. So currently for folks who are in Mississippi, are they under the same contract as what we have for our Vermont inmates in Vermont? Or is that how is that operating for Mississippi? I think it is different.

[Haley Somers]: And I could get those details for you, but I don't have them.

[Alice M. Emmons]: You think it is different. So our concern is should the report also look at evaluating options for providing no cost telecommunication for those folks in Mississippi as well? And how that would look like. It would look different than what we're looking at now for in state, correct?

[John Gray]: Yeah,

[Haley Somers]: I mean, trying to think of

[Alice M. Emmons]: that just came up. It would be worthwhile

[Haley Somers]: to add some sort of clause that specifies it includes individuals who are obviously not interstate compact. I think that's very niche, but individuals who are in the out of state facility in Mississippi that

[Alice M. Emmons]: Of course. I

[Haley Somers]: don't have any issues with that.

[Alice M. Emmons]: You might

[Haley Somers]: as long as I'm bringing all of bringing up right up

[Alice M. Emmons]: your flagpole to make sure.

[Haley Somers]: Okay. I mean, think doing an impact assessment in general, the kind of sentiments would be the same for folks who are here in Vermont and individuals who are in Mississippi. I don't think that the contracts are exactly the same or perhaps there are some things that folks in Mississippi get that people don't hear because they're so far out of state. So I think it's measurable to add this. And I'm happy to run that up if you would appreciate the confirmation. I

[Alice M. Emmons]: would. And I would also appreciate to know what is current practice So right that also leads into the interstate compact. So when a person is in the interstate compact, They're in usually state or federal run facilities, and then it's based on the federal, and then it's based on that current state policies? Yes. So it wouldn't be Vermont policies at all? Yes. Those interstate compacts. Is there usually a switch of folks if we send someone to say Illinois, a federal facility in Illinois, would we get a person back? Or if it's a state facility, would we get one of their folks back?

[Haley Somers]: I think that has been the same in the past. I don't know that that's true for every instance. But if you are seeking that confirmation, I'm happy to get it. Just curious because that's new to the committee. I will say, and that it doesn't seem as though this is something that the committee wants to include in the evaluation. No. Okay. That analysis.

[Alice M. Emmons]: It's just Mississippi. That's all. Yeah. Okay. So if you could just look at that and then get back to John on this, know whether or not to include language that includes our out of state beds in Mississippi with poor civic. And then under the stakeholders, is on page two, line, page two, which starts on line 14. That's who DOC would consult with, but practicable. We're changing Department of Safety to the PUC commission, Public Utilities Commission. Okay. Taking out state treasurer. And we're adding CoreCivic because you gotta be if we're gonna look at our out of state bid in Mississippi, be able to civic.

[Haley Somers]: Yeah. I mean, we're happy to consult with them. We do have a contract in that what we tell them to do, they do not. But we're happy to consult with them. If the committee wants that language, that's fine.

[Troy Headrick]: If you told them we are now doing just hypothetically, I know we're not getting there, but if you told them we're now doing no cost calls, they would have to do that?

[Haley Somers]: Yeah, DOC would still absorb those costs. That

[Alice M. Emmons]: would be part of a contract. So do you still wanna highlight out more of it?

[Troy Headrick]: I don't see it like that. I

[Conor Casey]: mean, it's it's all as practicable. Right? Not like I don't see the harm in having them on there. Because some of the logistics could be something worth discussing even if the cost is absorbed.

[Troy Headrick]: I assume it goes without saying, but if all of this were to happen, including here, including there, we can make whatever arrangements with whatever provider we want here, but we're not gonna tell Mississippi what to do operationally. Right? So they're gonna keep whatever their current setup is and we just keep the charges. Is that how that would work?

[Haley Somers]: I think without having enough details about the yeah. I can't answer that. I can't right now, but happy to get back.

[Alice M. Emmons]: That's where you will kick in with your evaluation. Yeah. That would be the second evaluation.

[Troy Headrick]: Look forward to that.

[Haley Somers]: Can I ask a question? I'm hoping someone can elaborate what I mean, I know what a community based reentry service provider is. I'm curious what

[Alice M. Emmons]: What page? It's page three, line three. Curious what the intent is for adding that, because it's quite broad. Your county, your justice centers, community justice centers.

[Conor Casey]: Okay.

[Troy Headrick]: The intent is to get a sense of whether or not reentry providers in general would anticipate a positive impact this legislation.

[John Gray]: Does that make sense?

[Alice M. Emmons]: Yeah, it does. I'm trying to

[Haley Somers]: think of who we would consult for that, but we'll figure it out.

[Troy Headrick]: I think broad enough to put dismiss offs in there. Could put Yeah. Does

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely one of: Gina Galfetti, Mary A. Morrissey, Brian Minier, Joseph Luneau, or William “Will” Greer)]: this Have ways.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah, does this anticipate an improved reentry process? People come out with, in this case, having better connections maintained. Sure.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So another question, Hayley, that we have. We're on bottom of page three. The wage impact evaluation report. Again, it's only for folks who are in our facilities. So what hap Are there work program Are there some work programs down in Mississippi? And if there is, are they paid the same amount as being incarcerated here?

[Haley Somers]: There are work programs out of state. They might be somewhat in parity with what's offered in state, but maybe somewhat more limited. I can't speak to the wages right now, but I can ask.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Can you figure that out? We wanna maybe include the out of state beds in Mississippi in this as well for the wage study? And when you find out, can you just reach back to John so that he can incorporate that language or not? And what else? Is that it? And then in the three and four

[John Gray]: Gonna be changed.

[Alice M. Emmons]: We're gonna be changing that. First thing we're gonna do is flip it. Four becomes three and three becomes four. And we're gonna change the old three. We are going to delete the meet basic needs. We're also gonna delete participation and facility work programs. And that piece, we're gonna add to the end of the old four.

[John Gray]: So basically three would be assess the relationship between current wage levels and the ability to purchase commissary items and telecommunication services. And then existing four would become estimate the impact of wage adequacy improvements on outcomes for inmates, including participation in facility work programs.

[Haley Somers]: I will say that the estimates for this section will be slightly more speculative than the previous one, because I don't know that there are any states to look to that have gone to this model yet, whereas for telecommunications, there is. So I can't guarantee how concrete of information that we'll be able to have for you all. I just want That's put that out correct.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So, I want to go back just to double check on this whole communication for the time frame for the report that's due December 1, but we have two check ins to joint justice. The first draft of the report would be September 15. And then updated draft of the report is November 15, which is two weeks before your final report. It's just those check ins and you know how joint justice works.

[Haley Somers]: That's fine. And that works. I understand that intent is just so that joint justice can engage in that conversation.

[Alice M. Emmons]: And make sure you're doing the work.

[Haley Somers]: Yes. That too. Yeah, those dates are fine.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Anything else?

[John Gray]: Did I miss anything?

[Alice M. Emmons]: So you have enough information for a new draft. We're going to wait for information from Haley about the out of state bids for how it works with the telecommunications, possibly, and definitely for the wages in terms of whether to expand that. Anything else from the committee on this? Anything else from John?

[John Gray]: The hope is to potentially vote this tomorrow. The thing?

[Alice M. Emmons]: I would love it if we could do it. Get

[Troy Headrick]: it of

[Kevin Winter]: here. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons]: The earlier you can do it, get ready for tomorrow

[John Gray]: Okay. The better. So at this point, it's just been in the form of draft language. I would now put it in the form of an amendment, would be a strike all amendment to existing two ninety four. So just confirming that you don't want any other pieces of existing two ninety four as introduced.

[Kevin Winter]: Are there

[John Gray]: other things in there? Okay. That's it. That's correct, y'all.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Conor has been willing to report this.

[Conor Casey]: Happy to do it, Shawn.

[Alice M. Emmons]: And, John, you're good at this. Is there anything in No. There anything in the bill that's introduced that deals with money or appropriations

[John Gray]: Oh, we just Second.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Fees that might kick it to ways and means. Anything there in the original bill?

[Troy Headrick]: I didn't know that chair. So it's the original bill that matters, not

[John Gray]: the It items is the original bill.

[Alice M. Emmons]: It's the original bill. Yep. Telephone calls at no expense. The

[Troy Headrick]: only thing I can think of is potential impact on the licensed credit program because that generates.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Generates revenue.

[John Gray]: Yeah.

[Troy Headrick]: But I'm just doing this in my head.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I'm not Yeah, well, I'm looking at any language that might trigger compensated at a rate that's equal to federal minimum wage, separate fund.

[John Gray]: How broadly? There's a conceivable way to interpret it where you say it does go to.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I have to let the House Court determine that. But there's nothing that raises there's some potential.

[John Gray]: In any event, the amended version would be a simple thing to describe if it ends up in the design.

[Alice M. Emmons]: But it's the underlying bill that Okay. Anything else? So as early as possible tomorrow, if we could get final draft would be terrific.

[John Gray]: Guess it depends. There's some answers we'll need on pieces, but are you shooting for I'm generally flexible tomorrow is I think what I'm offering. So if you want us to do this in the morning, assuming we have final confirmations, we could try to do that.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Give me answers to the pieces that you're hearing from DOC. I've just reached out to

[Haley Somers]: our subject matter expert. Hopefully, we'll have that soon.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So if we get that today. Think that's how many you need it today. And could do it. Any word back on WellPath for tomorrow?

[John Gray]: Yeah. We're just trying to figure out the final time, but it would be in the morning.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Yeah. Would it be at 08:30 or more than 09:30? It's ten.

[Haley Somers]: Seems like Doctor. Is freest at 08:30, but we might not have DOC representation at that time.

[Troy Headrick]: We'll talk about him.

[Haley Somers]: Mean, that It's questions for WellPath, so if that needs to happen, that's fine.

[Alice M. Emmons]: But WellPath is the one that's going to be providing the medical services.

[Haley Somers]: Right now.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Right now. But they're contractors.

[Haley Somers]: So if it needs to be just WellPath, I'm not too concerned. But we're still kind of waiting on the

[Alice M. Emmons]: This will impact when John can come in.

[Haley Somers]: I

[John Gray]: am strangely flexible tomorrow.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Oh, we wanna get you in here when we can.

[John Gray]: They should have announced that. Yeah.

[Kevin Winter]: Strangely, it's the most important.

[John Gray]: Find it surprising.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Just looking at how the section is structured, it's medical care. And it would be department as contractor ensure the use of licensed health care providers with cultural competency. So who determines that? That would be WellPath, right? Or is that Davis CS?

[Haley Somers]: It's not clear in statute.

[Alice M. Emmons]: Carbonite contractors would ensure inmates access to all necessary appropriate medical care, routine preventive medical care, affirming medical care, including mental health care. And then the admission screening and assessment, just a physical assessment, that would be That's That's Well Well The department general search or physically examine inmates for the sole purposes of determining their genital status. That's DOC. When can DOC you're still trying to figure out when DOC can commit?

[Haley Somers]: Yeah, we can definitely be here tomorrow. And I know we're here this afternoon too. At least, Josh does.

[Alice M. Emmons]: I wonder if we'll have time to get into that this afternoon with Josh. When Doctor. Is available, we need him. Yes. So that's a priority. So he's available more at 08:30.

[John Gray]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So after ten, can we do you, John? That makes sense to folks?

[Troy Headrick]: Mhmm. I

[Alice M. Emmons]: think 08:30 to 09:30 is too tight. Mhmm. From an hour and a half. Cool. Ten. And then, hopefully, the draft is in decent shape that we can vote it out, or maybe there'll be one or two weeks. But and you should put on the agenda possible vote this one. Perfect. Anything else before we break? Come in,

[John Gray]: I'm aware. I'll see you shortly, Mr. Gray. Yeah, I will see you guys.

[Alice M. Emmons]: So we're done here on YouTube until 01:00. So we're back here at one folks. And we're going to pick up gender equity.

[Troy Headrick]: So