Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're live. Right?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yes. Okay.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome back, folks. This is House Gretchen's and Institutions. It's Thursday, March 12. Yeah, March 12. We're going to continue our line by line reading of House Bill five fifty. We want to complete this today. So, this is page six, and we left off beginning section four, which is line eight. And this deals with searches. So let's read that. And we do have some new language as well that Hillary went through one b. Yes. So this deals with lawful searches done by DOC. This is not WellPath. This is DOC, and it searches with safety and security of the facility and
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Sections do you want us to read?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't you read a b. Yeah. Read the whole thing, a b and c.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Is Hillary coming?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: She's supposed to, I thought, right?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I just sent her a note. Do
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you have a question?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Well, have. We just talked about it, but in C, so page seven, line two, we had a different word for designation, search language. Accommodating requests. Okay.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that what it was, accommodating the database?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Correct. Accommodating a search request or accommodating?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: All I wrote was, I may not have gotten that right, but I thought that supportive individuals health and safety and whether a search
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Whether accommodating a request or post. Yeah. It gets Recommending a request. It's an a
[Brian Minier (Member)]: search designation.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: She was gonna work out. She'll be in.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: But we but that that's in there.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: She she had caught it. She's out and look. Sorry
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to be No. You're fine. So on B, that was what we clarified this morning with doctor. Yep. That's what we clarified that, you know, WellPath usually doesn't do searches. And then, Hillary, while you get settled there, we did have a question on the top of page seven. We talked this afternoon on line two about whether a search designation, and then we were gonna change language there.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Accommodating the inmates' requests.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Accommodating the inmates' requests. Excellent. Oh, Hailey is on Zoom, so that's good.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Okay.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hi there. Hi, Hailey. We just are going through page six, the searches. Okay. Going through line by line for that. I'm gonna ask this at this point. I probably should have asked it a long time ago, but I'm gonna ask this at this point at Haley. Are there up to this point through searches? Are there issues that DOC is having with the bill up through this point?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Oh, prior to the searches section?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: No. Not any concerns. I think we cleared up the piece around volunteers, so nothing is concerning right now.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So we're in the process. We're just finishing up re reading searches Mhmm. Searches section.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I'm okay with other than that change we made in that last sentence.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Sorry, subdivision A, are the four listed items, clothed searches, unclothed searches, urinalysis, and body scans, are those all four in policy right now and cover all the policy in DOC right now?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: So our subcommittee discussion was that those are the four kinds of searches that this would apply to. So that's why we listed them and say it is covering all kinds of searches. I would want DOC to confirm, but DOC's policy DOC has a policy that pertains to each of these kinds of searches.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's accurate. So Let me write that down before. So by listing it, we conduct lawful searches in accordance with this section, including the closed searches, unclothed urinalysis and body scans, are we limiting what would be lawful searches under this section by listing that? Or is it other searches that could happen, including these?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: So our understanding from DOC during subcommittee meetings was that there are not searches other than closed searches, unclogged searches, urinalysis, and body scans. Those four terms cover the universe of searches. The way this is drafted, if there were a kind of search other than these four things, it would still cover that. But listing the four kinds that DOC recognizes is a way to confirm that when this provision says searches, it means all searches. But if a new kind of search came up and started to be used, it would still be covered by the language of this section. Because it's any lawful searches is the key? Any lawful searches. And then as you pointed out, the including is, it means that there could be something that is a search that is not one of the listed items.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: As long as it's
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: lawful. Yes. No permission to conduct unlawful searches.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Haley, I'm assuming, I'm hoping you're okay with this section, with DOC being okay with this section?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah, DOC is okay with this section and we appreciate the kind of broadening of it as we finalize our searches policy.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else from the folks? Okay. Section five. This is the meat of it in a way. You got the classification of inmates, the housing in terms of where they would be housed, and the programming placement. So let's do A, B, and C on this page first.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: By the departments, is there something pastel on the front of it?
[Brian Minier (Member)]: The letter a, I think.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Okay. And it's Yeah.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Going from
[Brian Minier (Member)]: indefinite to definite. Yeah.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Because previously in front
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: of my glasses, I couldn't read it.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah. I get it, sister. I'm getting there.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we clarified what's highlighted in yellow and sees what we clarified from doctor Eulager's testimony this morning. There was an a panel. There's a variety of avenues. And it's a consultation because he testified that WellPath is not part of that panel.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Gina, were you here for that? So I remember that when the three of us were doing this as a subcommittee, it was important that medical personnel be part of the process for determining, especially if there's gonna be a denial for health request. So today, Doctor. Ulliger clarified staff, Wellpast staff, is not on these multidisciplinary panels. And he said, we wouldn't wanna be for conflict of interest. I'm just articulating this for you because I can anticipate some people wanting to dig into how robust is that most disciplinary disciplinary panel. So I asked the doctor to explain that conflict of interest because I didn't immediately understand why there would be a conflict of interest there. This was his example. If WellPath staff is a panel that has to make determinations, in this case about a housing placement, and they decide not to place, not to accommodate a housing request. And then that same person has to provide medical care for that person. That's the conflict that suddenly this person who has been denied a request by the person providing, that could cause some tension there. So that's why WellPath staff is not. So we changed it to consult, that they shall consult on a regular basis. It's a shall, right? Yeah. That make sense? It made a lot of sense. It did. Yeah.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So it would be a conflict.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yes. It was really, really simple to understand that conflict.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. But I anticipate somebody wanting to make sure that those multidisciplinary review panels are not just rubber stamped, that they're legitimate view of the request. And they are.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Is everyone good with the rest?
[Brian Minier (Member)]: I'm not good with it regularly yet. With what? Regularly. This is line 17
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: on page seven.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Does that mean on each and every case?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What if it was just shall consult? With? Yes.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Think salt because that can cover
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Heard you say
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Does that work for you, Brian? Yeah. Prefer it if it's going.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. That's
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: good to me. That works.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You can see.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. That's easy enough.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: See what alignment brings us.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: It's all the different items. Yep. Critical.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Make you think a little bit. We've made some changes as we've gone through. Anything else? This is a, b, and c. There's more. So on b, this is upon initial intake. So a person's in booking. Okay? They're in booking. And the department needs to ask them to see if they ever re request us to any housing placement.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: K? K.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Seems pretty crystal clear. Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, J. We're still in the section for classification housing and program placement. And D has a one and two. So let's read d with one and two because they're all interconnected. So I have a question on line six and seven. Would determine the classification of housing placement, would not best protect the health and safety at that time, but may recommend discussing reassessment with the inmate after a specified period. What do we mean by specified period?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Something the subcommittee talked about was that in some cases, it's more of an ongoing discussion where it's not, for reasons that won't change, displacement is not appropriate for you. I think the example given was there might be some ongoing mental health concerns that make the placement not the right choice at that time, but that if some steps were taken, then reassessing the placement might be appropriate. So the idea with that sentence is just to capture that in some instances, what happens is more of a conversation or something that the plan is to revisit it after a certain period. So I don't think there's any magic to the words after a specified period. But the idea is, I think the key pieces there are, may determine at that time, but may recommend discussing reassessment. It could be at a later date, but just
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: After a specified period, I kind of interpret that, well, after a month, you reassessed, or after two weeks? Prescribing some period. Was the discussion kind of it's fluid and can change?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so the period could be different depending on the situation, or it could be based on satisfying a certain, or not, but based on sort of steps
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It be a period. This could be a day
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: or a long time.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Goes Read two specified period.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Or discussing reassessment with the inmate.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: After a period of time? No.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Because at a later date. Is that too broad?
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Just wanna say that again. I just to by both parties.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Can't accommodate now, but let's talk about it in
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: in two months. Both parties. We'll talk about it in two months.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: It'll be truly a mutual agreement. Well, I remember agreement.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: The example they gave was that a lot of the times, a person, especially transgender persons, will be placed with someone and at first won't wanna do that, but after a few days, bonds with that person. I remember that like real specifically, and it helps that person because them having a go to person that they're living with at first, they may not want to, but down the road they will. So I just wanted to share that.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: That's why we said agreed by both parties.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Right.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Timeframe. So I think then that is respectful of both sides.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Right.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But that's kind of This is kind of a little bit in the reverse, because the department may determine would not best protect where the person may wanna go, would not best protect the health and safety at that time.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Okay, I see what you Yeah, I got you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But may recommend discussing reassessment with the inmate at a later time? Yeah, I think that works.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: At a later time?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: I think that works.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So there were a couple, I think, if I remember right, and I'll ask my two subcommittee members to chime in if this doesn't feel accurate, A couple of different examples. One was what Hillary articulated, that maybe there's co occurring mental health concerns that we want to resolve before we make decisions about this kind of housing placement. The other was, and this is especially, I think, relevant to trans men, we're worried. If we place you on that cell block, let's make sure that this is a well thought out decision. We're not saying no, but we want to apply due diligence. So that was another consideration as well. And we just want the flexibility for the department and the multidisciplinary panel to be able to, again, hit the pause button, tap the brakes, and say, let's think about this for a beat and then make our decision.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, and so these are also weasel words. Suppose they could be misinterpreted. But does after an appropriate interval get us closer to what we're talking about?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Say that again, Brian. I'm wondering if after
[Brian Minier (Member)]: a specified period were replaced by after an appropriate interval, the then question of course will be what's appropriate and who determines it. I think that gets us closer to
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Or after further consideration.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Further consideration.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: But that still kinda puts it out there. I think agreement because then you're saying both parties are agreeing to a time to discuss it again, understanding that the new inmate having new challenges Right.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. We'll send at a
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: later time. Talk to everyone in the process.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: After a mutually agreed upon
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the one challenge with mutual agreement is that I
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: might not get it. Yeah.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: That if there were not mutual agreement, then the department could say, if you want to discuss it, it will be at this later time. So I think here, I think at a later time works. After an appropriate interval, I think, also works. Appropriate is whatever the department says. Appropriate evidence. But in this case, that is how it's structured. The panel would determine. So I think either of those options work. Okay. Thank you.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Well, going back to the original after a specified period, who's specifying that period?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think we've agreed not to have specified periods.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Okay.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I
[Brian Minier (Member)]: just thought appropriate was less random seeming than Specified could be, if I got six months, excuse me, where appropriate is because it's necessary for security, it's necessary psychologically. But again, these are all these words.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Guys read the whole sentence and then something. So the department may determine that classification of housing placement would best protect health and safety at that time, but may recommend discussing reassessment with the inmate at a later time.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: I think that's
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or Let's keep this.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: At a later time.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I think that's good. That was to your idea.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It just kinda came out as
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: you were reading. You've done this a few times. Sorry.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So that sets the overall, and then one and two defines it a little bit more.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: You're too frank. I would not agree most.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this one is an out Kind of an ounce number one. It kind of says the same thing, but it's So
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: one is emphasizing how the department should consider the inmate's request. So D is setting forth the overarching principle for making a decision, how the department's going to do it. Do it on an individualized basis and consider whether it would best support the inmate's health and safety and whether it would pose risks to safety or security. One is saying, you've asked the inmate for their request. You need to give a serious consideration. And if you find that accommodating the request would pose any of these three concerns, then the department may decide that it cannot accommodate the request. And we talked, I think, earlier today about changing those to ORs because the point is that should be worse. So the inmate's health or safety or the safety or security of other inmates or staff. Would be So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and turns to or between safety and security, don't we know?
[Brian Minier (Member)]: I don't think it matters to understanding, but I think for Flo, we could delete safety at the end of line 10 and or security at the beginning of 11 because it's just repetitive. And so it would pose an unreasonable risk to the inmate's health or safety or
[Conor Casey (Member)]: the safety and security.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the department read the broad safety or security as encompassing some of the operational concerns they might have to consider.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're talking about the inmates.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: It's in the second clause, though, the safety and security of other inmates or staff.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I understood the department to be thinking of some operational considerations that are distinct from the safety of specifically the people, inmates or staff, that there would be some scheduling scheduling here, but some structural operational reasons that might impact the decision. But that is I can't be more specific. Because that's all I remember.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah, I dig that. Yeah. Well,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: one thing that I could see happening quite easily in terms of the safety and security of other inmates and staff putting on the operational hat of DOC. You put someone in one of the living units, and there could be another person in that living unit that is really agitated that there's a person, trans person in there, and really start rallying people up. And it wouldn't take much to have a little uprising in the living unit. And that puts at risk other inmates, and it puts at risk staff.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: We do have And that's the one last question. Yeah. We do have the There is an obligation to eliminate the risk rather than Or mitigate the risk. Right, right. I hear what you're saying. Could be a
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: powder keg and a living unit that all of a sudden just blows. Haley, do you wanna can you weigh in on this at all?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. I mean, I think that that would still be encompassed in speaking about the health and safety of the inmate and other staff. So I feel as though they do kind of both encompass each other.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So are you saying we should keep the language in line 11 as is Or keep the inmates' health and safety?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the question is, is there something the department would be considering in deciding not to accommodate an inmate's housing replacement request other than the inmate's health or safety for the safety or security of inmates or staff?
[Brian Minier (Member)]: In which case, for clarity's sake, having just argued for brevity, would argue for putting in institutional safety or security, just adding a word.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. I think if that's what the committee is trying to get at and that is a consideration, then that is a lot clearer. So thank you for that suggestion.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Putting in the institutional safety Insecurity. And security. You have to have
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: More security. More security. So that's in line 10 at Correct. The In between two and safety Correct. Institution.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, it would be on line 11.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Would pose unreasonable risk to institutional safety or security or the inmate's health or safety or the safety or security of other inmates or
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, alright. I misinterpreted that.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I like that.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: How do
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you spell institution, I wonder?
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I don't
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: know how many people were.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Okay. So we're good there?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There was an unreasonable risk to institutional safety or security, the inmate's health and safety, or the safe or the safe no. No, may not be or Or the institutional safety. That's up at 09:10. Unreasonable risk to institutional safety or security, the inmate's health and safety Health
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: or safety.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's going
[Conor Casey (Member)]: be health or
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: safety or the safety or security.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Oh, got it.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thank you. No more ins ever.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So now we have all oars.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: More ins.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Then the department can decide it cannot accommodate the request, that Number for all these two. And that one, cut short that the department would base their classification and housing determinations of reliable, objective evidence. Do we really even need that if we're really clear in one?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I like it, though.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I do like it, too. I think that there's Troy made a point, I think I think it's good that it's there because it just throws another, like, reliable objective evidence.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Especially given Uh-oh. Uh-oh.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: The summer speaks.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Sorry. I have a question for Hillary, this is because I'm not a lawyer. And I could also bring this back to our legal team too. The, I just feel as though the language of reliable and objective evidence is so vague and I fear that it might put the department in an uncomfortable place what if we were to be sued.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: About when we're combining it with E though, with the Riffin? I think it's nice to have there because we're about to say that you have to have a written documentation. And I want that written documentation based on objective evidence.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: One way to maybe
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: No, go ahead.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think one option to consider that makes it potentially more precise for both the department to understand and follow and for others to assess is the department shall base its classification and housing placement determinations on objective bases. Think I understand that reliable and evidence could be interpreted to require more than we are perhaps suggesting, than the bill is suggesting DOC do. But I appreciate that specifying objective is playing a role in the written requirement. So knowing that you might still need to take that back to your team, Haley, would language like that at least go partway towards addressing that concern? I appreciate that.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah, I think that objective makes a lot of sense, and that is what we strive to do. It's the, I think, reliable term that brings me the most pause.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Great.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: It could be read to implicate lots of evidence in some different way, so I appreciate that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what would it read?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Would read, the department shall base its classification and housing placement determinations on objectives. I mean, realizing it uses the word base and so on bases is not great, but I can find a synonym for bases that is
[Conor Casey (Member)]: simply It not
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: says objective evidence. Am I on line 15?
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. Yes.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: The suggestion is that using the words reliable and using the word evidence would implicate a higher requirement than what I think the thrust of the bill is trying
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I like to get the way
[Brian Minier (Member)]: I'm of, you know. Know we're going
[Conor Casey (Member)]: to do totality.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: can see the department shall make its classification and housing placement determinations on objective basis.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: On a totality of objective basis?
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah, otherwise I'm concerned that I can say, well, you know what's objectively that I can observe is that this person has this kind of genitalia.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: That's reliable, that's objective.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: So if you say totality, then
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: We've also said they can't do that in an abstinence provision. And the bill also says they have to state that. So there would be a check if that were the case.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Kill the whole thing.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: My computer is dead, and so I cannot quickly look at it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So is there a charger?
[Brian Minier (Member)]: What do you need?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I was scouting earlier. That one does not work. It's maybe against James.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There's one here. The one from James.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Can I see the end of it? The plug in end. Oh, that would be amazing. It's for my
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: sweet plugs.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: He's like that. He may have to come into desks.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: So sorry. He's gonna have to come in. You
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: gotta pull it here.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: While this reads, if this works, I will work on an alternative phrasing for lines fourteen and fifteen. And if the committee wants to keep reading in this section, I'll have a new proposal for that language.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: And just pluralizing, right, basically?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What do we want the housing classification determinations to be based on?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Objective evidence.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Objective grounds. Objective.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Objective. I like bases.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Bases.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Objective basis. Considerations.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: The department shall make its classification and housing placement determinations on objective basis. So I'm gonna write it back.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: And not just lose reliable, just on objective evidence.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Objective basis. So I think the objective is what we absolutely wanna capture and we net, we want it now that is different from evidence and On it doesn't an objective basis. So the department shall make its classification and housing placement determinations an objective basis.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Haley?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Does that work? Yes? Like, you like that?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yes. I think that that's an improvement.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: K.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else? So number two. Okay. Let's go to
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: B cut.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Cut. So then e comes in if it cannot accommodate the request. Upon determining it can't accommodate the request. It needs to document in writing.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We talked about that at length yesterday. Yep. Just.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're fine with that? Mhmm. And DOC is fine with that? I think Josh nodded when he was here yesterday.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. No issues with that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Let's go to f. Then we're gonna correct on line seven. Correct. Contracted facility. So this would also encompass facility outside the state. That would also encompass our interstate compact, correct?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: They said, yeah, we had this discussion. Yes. They, I think, said yes. Outside the state was general enough to include those compacts.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: The way that I read this language, it does seem as though it encompasses the interstate compact.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we don't house anyone outside of interstate compact or or out of state contract with CoreCivic. Correct? There's no other situation, do we?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Sorry. Was No. You were switcher.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: No.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Here.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We don't do anything, do we, outside of the interstate compact and our contract with CoreCivic?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: No. We don't do anything outside of those two.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Just didn't think it think so, but you never know. There's a little fluke every once in a while. Yeah. So we're okay with that? Yes. G has got one and two, and this is assessing the housing policy.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Okay. Okay.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I'm good with that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I have a note that says currently is in DOC policy.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I don't that on the
[Conor Casey (Member)]: If you wanted to.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. Yep.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: That one is a. Right?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. We've got one.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Then the h
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and we have the h, which also has another one and two.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Good with those.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yep.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Why now remind me why in this one we said that assignment and not housing placement?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: The cut assignment is Is the cell. Specific cell with a specific person who might be supportive ally. Yes. Placement
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is in the unit.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yes. Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or in a facility. Right. So Haley, is department okay with the new age?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. I'm curious and this might've been something that the subgroup discussed, so I apologize if that was the case, but the reasoning for including the programming decisions in line five.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So wondering if like so what are the what are the program? Like like, does Honors College fit here? No. Honors College Honors.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: That's fine. I understood. That would be a housing placement. I mean, they're kind of like the term program is very specific in DOC world. So I think of that as, like, sex offender treatment program Okay. Which is why it feels somewhat out of place, but I wasn't sure if there was a specific reason for including that. Things like honors dorm or honors unit and, like, print, things of that nature, I don't think quite fall into the term programming.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Can we get rid of programming decisions and lose no offense here?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're saying well, programming decisions could be that they are working within the vocational arena or educational arena, or they're having some required cognitive behavior programming towards the end of their sentence.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Or drugs?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: We use the term programming so specifically that things such as vocational training kind of use their own term. Programming is very specific to something that would be mandated such as sex offender treatment.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's the way
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: that the term is kind of used in everyday DOC world.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So should we take the word programming out?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, we're taking it out or substituting something else?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But what do you also mean by placement? What do you mean by placement? Before, it was determining a classification or housing placement is what we've used, housing placement. So we're also thinking of housing placement there, not just bed assignment, but housing placement.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: That is how I read it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm not
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: sure if others
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: All the other places we've used housing placement.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So let's put it
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Because it we we have only
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: using placeility. The the other place that we're using placement is on page nine, on line six. We gotta I don't think we'd wanna be consistent unless there was a specific reason, or did it just get lost in the shuffle?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think just lost in the shuffle.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Okay. Just in for Okay. Housing placement.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So on line six, on page nine? Yep. Line six, housing placement, because that's what we're talking about.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We should carry it forward to page 10.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I just did a search on placement, so now back on page six, line two, we've got programming placement there.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, we got page Well, as long as we're defining what the placement is.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I'm just saying that we have, there are 21 occurrences of the word placement in the bill.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Well, could mean placement in a bed situation, though we have bed assignment in front of that. So I would say housing placement because it depends upon what facility you're being put in. Correct?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, yeah, we gotta be careful. Whoops. Because I just read on page nine, this deals with folks who are placed in out of state facilities. So you don't want housing placement there. Because you're talking about folks who are placed in out of state facilities to best support them, their inmates' health and safety, and whether the placement would pose risks to safety or security. That placement is referring to being placed in a facility outside the state.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Federal generally does use placement as a more in relation to other kinds of decisions. So I will take another look through the bill. And if there is a place where it is not clear what kind of placement we are talking about, if it is supposed to be a specific kind of placement, I will suggest clarifying that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what do we mean on page 10, line five, bed assignment placement and programming. What do we Programming?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's housing placement.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's housing placement? Yes.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I agree.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then are we taking out programming?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I think that Haley made that really clear that that is a very, like, have weighted word in corrections. So we gotta figure something else out to say there.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: So, Hailey, given that's the case, there's a repeat of programming placement on page six line two. Is it equally inappropriate? You've already found it. You're smiling. Yeah.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. That's a great find, sir. I just I also that was, something I missed. So I would feel similarly that maybe it would be best to strike the language on, page six line two that refers to programming for those same reasons.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that one would read classification housing placement. Right?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or Search. Don't you guys just lump them line by line?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Better hear it than up there.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Up there on the fourth. So I almost say, it'd take more time on the fourth. Anything else on h one and two? This is specifically for placing the person in a housing situation or or a cell where it could be supported by another inmate or there could be a risk to them from a situation. So Haley, are you okay with what we've done on each? If you followed us along?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: I have no, I mean, I think the only thing I would flag, it seems maybe more of a wording issue or perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but line six housing the inmate with another inmate. They're all housed with other incarcerated people, and the way that I read that is that there is a potential for them to be placed alone. I don't think that that is what line six is trying to get at, though. But I think that's just a phrasing thing. I can understand it as being in this conversation, but I think if someone were looking at the statute for the first time would read that as housing this person with another person in a situation in which they would otherwise be housed by themselves, which we don't do.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: So it should be like basing inmate selection?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Or housing the inmate with a particular other inmate.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: It's not in bed, basement summits. Don't know what I said.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah, both does particular kind of put someone out there. So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that other inmate, would that be in a living unit? Or what's our goal? Is it in a living unit? Or is it in a cell?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I have cell in my mind.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah, thought it was roomy.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, roomy. Bestie.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So housing the inmate
[Brian Minier (Member)]: They're be doing yoga.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In their bed assignment to another inmate?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's the same challenge that Haley's pointing out, that without some adjective about the other inmate, it reads as whether to house the inmate with another person at all, as opposed to housing the inmate with another potentially supportive inmate, which is the intention of subdivision
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Choosing the inmate's cellmate? So, like, choice will be based on yeah. Do you call them cellmates, Hannah?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: I don't know. Well, we don't call them inmates, which is why the the language is funky too.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Residents. I yeah.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: I know that's what it is in statute, though. Well, I I recall that in the first draft of the bill, it was phrased as housing them with an inmate of choice, and that raised some concerns over the potential for people using this nefariously. Right. So I'd I'd be hesitant about specifying that it's something they could choose. But I'm wondering if and, Hillary, let me know your thoughts. It would read to make sense if it was just the inmate they are housed with.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: The inmate with whom they are housed. Yep. That could work. Okay. Let me just look at back at the whole provision. So the department shall give a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex inmate's perception of health and safety serious consideration in making bad assignment and housing placement decisions, including and say again, Healy, the language that you had.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: The inmate they are housed with.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: The inmate with whom they are housed with.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The inmate with whom they are housed with.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Which in let me just think for a second.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: The department selection of? Is it a question of who's driving the bus?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a question of having a parent.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There is no blood
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: pressure. Which is what's catching me up. So both of these have, including housing the inmate or reducing the risk. Unfortunately, my 6PM brain after this particular day is not
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, almost done. We're almost Including
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: selecting the inmate with whom they are housed to best support safety and security. Automatically works, if that works for you, Haley.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. I think that's fine.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: The challenge is we crafted we spent a lot of time crafting two, and so I don't wanna mess with two by your structure is very simple, but it would require changing two. And at this point, I am wary of changing two.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I would read including selecting the inmate with whom they are Sorry, what should
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: you say? Selecting the inmate with whom the inmate is housed to best support safety and security. Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that works, Haley? Or if that works for you, it works for us. It works. It works.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Thank you for entertaining that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. No problem.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Thank you
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: for the suggestion.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Priya, we went through this pretty well yesterday. It's number two. And that's section two, that just says 01/01/2024, that's the one we're gonna codify, and we listed out all of the standards, which we haven't really gone into those standards at all. I hope we don't have any questions about them on the floor.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: But that's all PREA driven,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: PREA driven.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: So it's like, that's central.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the question on the floor would be, to refer someone to the specific PREA standards, which are identified the different federal regulations are identified by these titles. So if someone wants to understand what is meant, and I will also be on the floor. And so if someone picks one of these and says, what does that mean?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then we'd have to take a recess to go there because this is all federally driven.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: But just for purposes of someone on the floor wanting to really dig in here, I think the answer is the regulation says it. And if they want to know what the regulation says, then we'll have to reassess and
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, we'll have to take a recess because it's federally driven.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And the whole point is that we're not, I think, one part of the answer is, it's in the regulation. It's doing exactly what the regulation is doing. And repeating all of the regulations here would, as Rob Winter said earlier, make the BSA many, many, many pages long. So I think that's the practical reason not to put it in. And if anyone wants to know the substance, DOC knows it because it's in the federal regulation. They're already following it. And anyone can consult the federal regulations.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: And we're just codifying the federal regulations as they exist in the event that things change.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And again, a specific question, you could take a recess and then I can stop.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: You said we put all 44 That's why we said all 44 are going in.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Did you do new language? Or those dates? Page 13, Max. So
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Let me read.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: was you. Page 13, MindSore. Because of data never They never did. It a year late and never the same thing. So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it's starting in
[Brian Minier (Member)]: 2027.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So subsection B now reads, starting in 2027, the Commissioner of Corrections shall annually submit a report to the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions and the Senate Committee on Institutions that provides the data required under '28 CFR section 115.87, which is the federal regulation that Jen directed us to that identifies the two reports that the committee wants, but not the third report the committee does
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: not want.
[Brian Minier (Member)]: Great.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. And Jen and Haley took a peek at that language earlier, and Haley can confirm, but I think that language worked for the two of you.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yep. That's accurate.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So on C, do we have to change?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do we have to change anything on C in terms of adopted? They're hoping to adopt policy soon, right?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, is pre owned policy that they already have. So you could say on passage because they already have the policy, but that seems a little odd and would generate questions. So this gets them through the end of the year to have their policy. I think if DOC has a preference on date, we could change that, but it is a policy they already have in existence.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: I think we are agnostic about the date.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you already had this policy in place, or are you starting to adopt new policies? The policy, to
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: my understanding, is being updated and should be released in the coming weeks or months. But we do have a policy in place at the moment.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. But you're being up but it's currently being updated.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. Around twenty five one fifty.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the January 15 date gives the department to the end of the year to make any updates. It sounds like search is moving along quickly, but to the extent there's conversation about others, it gives them some time to feel comfortable that they've done what they need to with their current existing policies on this topic to reflect what the bill is asking.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're fine with them. Section seven and section
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Seven, eight, nine.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just says renumbering all the existing statutes. One page 15. Yep. Basically, it's segregation. I mean, basically, it's definition. Some of it. Right? You're on the top of page six. No. We we're on the very bottom of page.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Thirteen, fourteen. 14.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: For section 10. Geez.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Search policy review and then the actual language starts on the top of 15.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But we're not changing anything. It's just renumbering those sections. Right.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Make no substantive changes. It is simply consistency because we are renumbering the definitions applicable to Title 28 For reference, usually or often, when you reference a definition, you'll just reference the sections. For this reason, you won't reference the subdivision so that if the numbering changes within the definition section, you still know what section to go to, and you don't have to remember like this. But since these sections chose to identify that specifically, we'll keep doing that. I just need get the new numbering.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So at the bottom of page 14, lines 21, we have another section 10, search policy review. This is how we dealt with the rebuttable presumption, correct issue?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Part of it, on search policy to, I think, capture I think the idea of doing this was to capture the principle while allowing the department to finish updating what is an involved area of the law was to say, here's the general principle of search policy, but we're not going to specify more about revival presumption or other details of when and how you can conduct searches. But the department shall submit on or before 08/01/2026. The Department of Corrections shall submit a revised search policy to the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee, b. The Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee shall review and recommend whether updates to the policy are warranted and what, if any, statutory changes might be warranted.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Perfect. Yeah, that's Perfect.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Seems good.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sounds good?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: That's straight.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We talked about it quite a bit.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's go to section 11. This is a report that's gonna be given to us December, just in case we need to draft legislation.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Right. That's what
[Brian Minier (Member)]: it gives us some time.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. And the report would identify changes to the standards of reporting requirements. So this plays out, instead of a sunset Oh, do we have to change anything on that thirty, thirty one, thirty, thirty nine? Do we have to change those numbers at all?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: We do not. Okay. Those are all of the sections, 30,301 to 30,309, in The United States code that are the Prisoner Rate Elimination Act. So our drafting convention, when we refer to a federal act, if you do it by name, you also list any of the code sections that it covers so that someone can go in with them if they so wish.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Susan's now on section 12.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, let's think this through. So honored before a year from the end of this year, because we wanted to give them two years. So they have all of this year, and they have a all they'll have all of this year once this becomes law, which is in July. So they'll have until January 27. So that's six months. And then they'll have all of '27. So that's a year and a half. Yes. Did they say they
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: had that done quicker anyway?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: This one is Just in
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: case there's any changes to the area. Okay. Alright. Yeah. Give it two years because the commissioner was concerned we were walking in, and there could be some changes that we
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: might wanna incorporate. So So the 12/15/2027 is okay?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That gives them a full year of thought I discussed.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: If there were a change, they also could come back earlier and identify something. But this is a built in reminder to come back and question whether this is still the right approach and if any changes
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: are I think that's good sooner than later so that if there was something additionally they need to do, can give them a role.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then section 12, that's a placeholder. That language is gonna change, but should we say gender affirming medical care?
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Health care? Are you doing mental and health care? Either So health care or just care?
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: As I understand it, gender affirming care is a term of art in the medical world that we're Okay.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Mental health care. All. Yeah. And Haley's nodding.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: I'm learning something new. I I was not aware of that, but that makes sense if that's what the medical folks are saying.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: What did you call it?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: A term of what?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Term of a passport and a gender identity. Legal test. It seems like Here covers all our health and health. Now.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: No. That's Everyone understands to me a certain thing.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Never never heard of.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a term of our in the gender identity world.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So then in section what was '12 is now '13, the effective date? Yep, yep.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Haley, to this point, would DOC be supportive of this bit As it's written on
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Check.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You may need to check. I
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: I know commissioner has been busy today and likely not tuning in, so I will have to run this language through him to get back to a formal answer for all of you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. I don't wanna put you on the spot, but we need to know where DOC is down on this.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We need to know early tomorrow.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: One option, given the very tight timeline, this will go through I've made the changes in the document. This needs to go through editing, which will tomorrow morning. But it will help the department reach a decision timely to share with the committee to have If a token of you want to hear the language that will be before the committee tomorrow, with the chair's commission, I would share
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, share it as soon as you can.
[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Subject to if it hasn't been through Benning. So if that's helpful, Haley, just in case anyone at the department wants to see the language that we discussed to feel comfortable with it or not.
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: That would be helpful. Thank you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we probably won't get back here on the floor tomorrow. We're back here in committee till after the floor tomorrow. And we're on the floor at 09:30. By a lot on notice calendar. So by 11:00. Let me say by eleven. We had a lot on notice.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So we're gonna be be better. Don't drag your feet.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. But we might be working tomorrow afternoon because I get that stupid meeting at noon. It'll take half an hour. So just be prepared for tomorrow afternoon, folks. I mean, we're in good shape, but the commissioner may have some issues that we really need to talk through and resolve. Or he may this will be really his first time going through a real piece of legislation that's gone through, what, two or three reiterations, pre drafts. So, he's, it's a new world for him. So, he may want to come in and ask us questions in terms of why we made this decision on the language and more clarity for him to understand the language. And I wanna offer that opportunity. That makes sense? What we've done. That makes sense. Right, Haley?
[Haley (Department of Corrections representative)]: Yeah. That's all. Yeah. That works for us. Thank you.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Excellent for lunch tomorrow at noon or one?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Noon. That's at that meeting. So folks, we're done till after the floor tomorrow. And we can go off with YouTube and have a good evening. And thank you all for
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: the work.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I think
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we're