Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Good

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: afternoon, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. This is March, Friday the thirteenth. It is Friday, March 13, and it's been quite a March 13 so far. So we have a new draft in front of us. It's draft 4.2. I wanna let the committee members know too that Will is on Zoom, and he will he has offered to be willing to vote when we get to that point to use up one of his dailies, the ability to vote remotely. So Hillary, welcome. And if you could walk us through the bill.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Hilary Chittenden Ames for the Oxford Telepivative Council. I'll go ahead and share my screen. All right. We have draft 4.2. This reflects in highlights changes that the committee discussed yesterday. So the first change will be on page five. This is the classification and not classification yet. This is the gender identification and non discrimination section. We had some discussion yesterday about making sure that volunteers were not included in some of the requirements to avoid any kind of legal risk. So this is lines 13 through 14. The department shall ensure department staff and contractors receive gender responsive training proportional to their level of interaction with inmates. On lines 16 through 21, this is the nondiscrimination section subsection. Two things we talked about yesterday. One, removing references to programming. So that does that on line 17. The department's decision not to accommodate an individual's search, classification, or housing placement request shall not be based solely on. And here, this was turning into a long list that was not particularly clear. So the suggestion in this draft is to list out the, three bases, in what is hopefully a little bit clearer format. So shall not be based solely on the individual's anatomy, including the genitalia, other physical characteristics, or diverse gender expression.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what's really important here is the or. It doesn't need to be all three. It's one of them.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think. Moving forward onto page six. This is one change in the searches section on lines 12 through 13, and this is a change that the committee discussed yesterday for clarity and to make sure we were using the same accommodating or not accommodating terms that we were using throughout this section. So the department shall consider on an individualized basis whether a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals request as to the gender of staff who may perform a lawful search would best support the individual's health and safety, and whether accommodating the inmate's request would pose risks to safety or security.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Want the committee just to hold a little bit and read this to yourself because now

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: there's going

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to a little bit more substant substantial change than the previous ones just to make sure we understand it. Again, these searches are only lawful to search for the for DC at the DOC. It is not well path. It's not medical. It's for forensic. It's not medical. Are we Okay with

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: this? So we changed it yesterday.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Sure. Can I just ask about the procedure? Are we just going through each change? Then are we going through again? What are we?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We went through it all yesterday line by line. So now is really the time to focus in on these changes.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I got to go for a question at the bottom of

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: my mind, but apologies for picking up. No, that's fine.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: This is page five, line 16, the nondiscrimination. It's a grammatical question for With the various oars in lines nineteen, twenty, and 21, Could you decide not to accommodate based on the individual's anatomy and physical characteristics?

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're taking the I same think combined. Yeah.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Okay. And Ms. Reichs that way? I'm sorry. I didn't hear that answer.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I I'm I'm having trouble with language right now. I think this lunch is late. But I was just trying to make sure that you couldn't decide not to accommodate. It says or through all these. Right? I'm wondering what about if you take two of them together? Do you decide not to accommodate based on one and two?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're all Solely. No, the way it's drafted is you've got, based solely on the individuals, one, anatomy, two, other physical characteristics, or three, diverse gender expression. So that or being between two and three, I think indicates you can-

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: You're not discriminating on any of those.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If one of those were in place is the trigger. It doesn't need two or three.

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

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the shall not be based is also important to any kind of normal reading of this to exclude relying on one or any combination of the three. Okay. I think if the committee wanted to be even clearer, you could say something like shall not be based on one or a combination of the following.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Mean, Fantzel says it's done this. It's unnecessary. I just had the problem. Yeah.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a good thought. I think it's really susceptible to that reading. If the committee had any concerns, there are different ways we could formulate that. Oh,

[Brian Minier (Member)]: just wanted to check.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Kevin, you've got a question.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah, then the way I'm understanding what you're saying is instead of saying solely, it should be any.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Her, this is legislative counsel legal language.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It shall not be based on any of the following. One thing that we heard from I'm trying to think now because originally, this had discriminatory reason, which is part of why we had solely in there. And so I'm just thinking back to what work solely is doing. Because now, when we had discriminatory reason, it was that the decision could not be based just on a legally protected category. Here, I think the intention is that there's no reliance on these three things in this decision making at all. So I think one option that could address these two points is to remove solely, which was added for the legally protected category language. But I think is not needed and could further clarify the question of, are you considering any of these items? So I read that the decision not to accommodate

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the request shall not be based on the individual's anatomy or physical characteristics or diverse gender expression. Although I

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think the department sorry, I'm just thinking through this. The department had initially said, we do make some housing determinations based on whether someone has male or female anatomy. The language here of the decision not to accommodate a request, the only individuals making requests are gender diverse, transgender or intersex inmates under the statute. And so I think that is one way to clarify that this doesn't pertain to the department's decision making for individuals who do not identify as gender diverse, transgender or intersex. But it makes me reconsider whether removing solely is the right way to go. Just thinking for a moment. I don't think that because the original because the because the statute is clear that requests are only made by individuals who are gender diverse, transgender, or intersex. I think removing solely here does not raise the department's concern about their decision making based on anatomy for inmates who are not gender diverse, transgender or intersex. And I think the committee's intent was that in deciding not to accommodate a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individual's request, that the department should not be considering any of these categories.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Kevin? I almost feel like I need to, if possible, have a one on one with you, because I don't want to waste the time with questions that will not help you move forward. Is that possible? Well,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is, but it's only going to delay the work. Don't want to say no, but you don't feel comfortable in sharing?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm not going to be able to vote yes for this in any way. So for me to fine tune it would be possibly wasting the committee's time. And if that's what you prefer me just to listen, I can do that. A person should be in a male or female setting.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: A gender diverse person. Talking specifically about gender diverse people with this portion of policy. I didn't understand what you said. In this portion of policy, we're talking specifically about people who identify as gender diverse.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Correct. Not everyone else in the facility, just folks. And that's what I wanted to clarify. We're in section 28 VSA title 129, which only pertains to gender diverse folks, correct? Not to the overall, everyone who was incarcerated? Or is it

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I not think the way we've drafted it is that where something is specific to a transgender, gender diverse or intersex individual, we have specified that. So for example, on page five, line four, what it says is that the only individuals who request the gender of staff who can perform a lawful search are transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals. The question for housing is in the housing section. But that is similarly. So this is page seven, line one. During the initial intake process and in as private a setting as possible, the department shall ask each transgender, gender diverse or intersex inmate to specify the inmate's request as to housing placement. So under any reading and when you're reading statutes, you would read these sections together. The only times that the department might be deciding not to accommodate a search classification or housing placement request will be for individuals who have identified as gender diverse, transgender, or intersex.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the nondiscrimination, this leads into my question that Kevin was kind of getting at too. So on page five, line 16B pertains to nondiscrimination. So if we put that up on the screen,

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Hillary. Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Does that pertain, that non discrimination clause there in B, does that pertain to everyone who is under, who is incarcerated in a facility? Or does that pertain just to what you had said before, transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals?

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The heading nondiscrimination is broad, but the language of this provision is specific to the department's decisions whether or not to accommodate a request. And the only times that they will be deciding whether or not to accommodate a search classification or housing placement request will be for gender diverse, transgender or intersex individuals under the terms of the statute.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, if you could identify here, we're not here. Haley, if you could identify yourself for the record.

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: For the record, Haley Summer heard good communications for VOC. That is almost accurate. However, the department does sometimes get requests from individuals to be housed at our state facility. And while in most cases it would be appropriate if the individual is sentenced, there could be times in which they have medical conditions that don't meet the threshold for them being able to be sent out state. So I don't believe that this language implicates that, but I just wanted the committee to be aware of the additional lane as we get these requests.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think that's useful. So one option, to clarify this in the language, is to say, the department's decision not to accommodate a gender diverse, transgender, or intersex individuals search classification or housing placement request shall not be based solely on And at that point, I think there's no concern about leaving solely from the original question of needing to consider this for individuals who do not identify as gender diverse, transgender or intersex.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Just a thought for counsel, a question for counsel, not be based solely on

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: one or more of the following. Does that remove what I'm talking about whether or not it's an issue? So then one or more of the following. Period. The individuals

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: The or implicates that. The or does that work?

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think one or a combination of the individuals would be language responsive to your initial point of, could you consider two? I don't think that makes difference a between the two. But it's certainly an option that the committee would No,

[Brian Minier (Member)]: if I flag it on issue, don't want kill us over here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I like clarifying that the nondiscrimination clause here is for make

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sure the language is right transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals. I think that's important to be clarified here. And again, it's a nondiscrimination subsection in the context of a section on gender identification. So I don't think it's It's belts and suspenders. Yes. And I think adding it is still worthwhile. I just mean that I think the way this section is structured makes clear that this is a kind of specific nondiscrimination provision with respect to a certain group of folks. And it doesn't imply that the department is not discriminating elsewhere. Sorry, but I don't mind.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are folks clear on this or not? So adding that language, Kevin, does that help in terms of understanding this section a little better?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: No, unfortunately, I think I understand it very well. So I'm going to refrain. I'm going to listen. My mind is made up. Sorry.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. All right. So I can make that change. So it would read the department's decision not to accommodate a Transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals search classification or housing placement request shall not be based solely on the individual's anatomy, including the genitalia, other physical characteristics, or diverse gender expression.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're good with it.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Okay, let's keep going now.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sounds like a useful point to clarify, though. Yeah. Appreciate that. Alright. Moving forward, we

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: touched on

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the searches language, and the committee read that. So I will keep moving on page six. This is lines 15 through 16. The title of this section, this is another change consistent with the committee's decision yesterday to remove references to program placement or programming placement. So the title of this new section, seven zero one, will be Classification and Housing Placement Determinations.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Seems crystal clear.

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Page

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 17, this is continuing in the classification and housing placement section on 17. The new

[Brian Minier (Member)]: We,

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in fact, do not have 17 anymore. Make the start.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'll give the wrong Brad.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This tells you that the end of crossover week is not peak brain activity. But I promise, I am doing my best. Page seven, which I even have up on the screen this time. So I've got something right. On line seven, the multidisciplinary review panels shall consult with medical personnel, mental health professionals with experience in gender dysphoria or gender affirming care, and personnel who have received training aligned with nationally recognized standards for gender affirming care. So decision by the committee yesterday was to move regularly. Pretty straightforward edit there. Moving forward in subsection D, so this is still page seven, and this is on lines 16 through 17. This section talks about the department's individualized consideration of placement questions. And this last line, the department may determine that classification or housing placement would not best protect health or safety at that time, but may recommend discussing reassessment with the inmate at a later time. So discussion yesterday was that this could be an ongoing conversation, Might say come back and we'll revisit it. And the committee thought that at a later time was a better way to capture that then after a specified period. And work for the committee?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because we spent a lot of time talking about this yesterday.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah. It's good.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. I'm at the bottom of page seven and moving on to page eight. Thank

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: you for the meeting. You, folks. Yes?

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If the department finds that accommodating the inmate's request would pose an unreasonable risk to institutional safety or security, the inmate's health or safety, or the safety or security of other inmates or staff, the department may decide that it cannot accommodate the request. So we added institutional yesterday. The committee wanted to capture the operational concerns that were mentioned. So adding institutional before safety or security would cover that. And then changing the AMs to ORs was to make sure that you were covering the possibility that just an inmate's health or safety, if there were an unreasonable risk to any one of these things, that it would be enough for the department to find that could not accommodate the request. So let's spend some time and read this because we spent a lot of time on this yesterday.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I can clear a room, No.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They've been here all day.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Really not fancy grammar.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not to

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: answer anybody. Yeah. Been here

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: all day. So it's Were

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they supposed to speak? No. Okay. No. I'll go back. They were just here to observe. Okay. Good. We are alright with this second question? And, Hayley, does this one Because we spent time with you folks yesterday on it.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes. Thank you.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Excellent. Moving forward on page eight, we have Subdivision 2. The department shall make its classification and housing placement determinations on an objective basis. This was discussed yesterday. Just

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: be thorough, objective basis.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are you coming back? I think

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it could be either. I think basis does not preclude multiple reasons.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sorry, what was your question?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Was wondering if it should be plural, objective bases rather than an objective basis.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think one advantage to referencing bases instead of bases is that there might, in fact, be one reason, in which case bases suggest that there must be more than one. The ground or grounds are the reason or reasons are they must be objective.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Thank you. Evaluation, no point. Forget it drop up.

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: I don't have evaluation.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Never thought about it. Cool. Never mind. I'm good.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The folks are good? Mhmm.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving forward, this is still page eight, subsection f, line 14. This was a change to be consistent with the change that we made earlier referring to facility outside the state and not contracted facility outside the state. So lines 13 through 15 read, the department shall coordinate with any facility outside the state to assess and reassess placement determinations. On line 16 through 17, this was a change to be consistent throughout the bill with reference to housing placement. Where it referenced housing placement, there might be other places in statute where placement is used more generally. But where we're talking about housing placement, we are saying housing placement. On page nine, this is subsection h. Two changes here on line three. Again, this was to confirm that we were talking about cousin placement and not some other kind of placement and to remove a reference to programming decisions. So the first part of subsection h reads, the department shall give a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex inmates perception of health and safety, serious consideration in making bed assignment and housing placement decisions, including, and this language was something that the committee discussed yesterday, selecting the inmate with whom the inmate is housed to best support safety and security. I think there was a question from DOC that the previous language suggested that the decision was whether to house someone with someone else or not and not who they were being housed with. So this was suggested as at least clearer, if not short of elegant way to express that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Haley, is this clearer for

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Thank you you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This is clearer. Okay, let's keep going.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a few pages. Can. These changes have not the section has not changed, the first part of it. In section b, which did change, and we discussed this yesterday, page 12, lines two through seven. 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 one fifteen dot 87.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: James? I wasn't here yet today. I'm sure you had this conversation, but why is it vague just like in that year, not a specific date? Or is that

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: next week?

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Jen mentioned yesterday that for various reasons, they do not produce the reports at the same time every year.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Earlier in

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: the morning, she said. Yes, in

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the morning. And we might have touched on this language in the evening. Looking at it, I feel like I said this before. But yes, that DOC had said that sometimes they don't get the data to finish the survey for various reasons at the federal level. So this is a way to say that each year when they do the report, they need to also submit it. And the change language at the end is a way to capture the two reports the committee wanted and not the third report that the committee did not think should be submitted.

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: That works, Amy? Yep. That works for the CPAP.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. And I think there is only

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We got one more on page 14.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One more. Page 14. This was just a grammar change, but flagging it. So lines five through six. The joint legislative justice oversight committee shall review the policy and recommend whether updates to the policy are warranted and what, if any, statutory changes might be warranted. So previously, didn't say what they were reviewing specifically. Best practice, specify the policy.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's for the search review.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. That was for the search policy review. And the final one, in section 12 on gender affirming care, this is line 15, on or before 10/15/2026, joint justice shall review current practices and submit a report to the House Committee on Corrections and Senate Committee on Institutions. I'm paraphrasing there, but the key change was the date, based on the committee's request, that it not be at the very end

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: of the year. So

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: those are the changes from yesterday. If there's anything else the committee wanted to discuss, there's certainly time. I can also make the, I think, one change the committee talked about now so that if the committee is ready to Yeah. So version ready. And there

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: will be another draft version. Yes. It'll be 04/2003. Click date. It'll be the same date. So other questions? Questions? Did this particular piece of legislation, and I know you ran it up the flagpole in So your if you could share with us where the department stands or thinking, what they're thinking on the bill.

[Hayley Sommer (Communications, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Happy to do that. Once again, department has appreciated the collaboration with the committee on the bill. Feels like it was a real partnership in terms of your willingness to amend the language so that it was consistent with what DOC currently does in practice. As a result of that, because none of the language changes are practice or policy, DOC has no concerns with the implications of the bill. The commissioner maintains his perspective that the language is somewhat granular for our ability to do policy changes in the future, internal department policy changes, but it's not something that the department is actively opposing.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. You'll get used to it. Legislation works. He just has an experienced legislation, so I get it for them. So let's give Hillary a chance to do this draft correctly. I did give a heads up to the house clerk that they would be getting this bill. It'd be a strike call, and that Gina was gonna be the reporter. Alright.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. I have a version 4.3 ready to share. Let's look at it and share my screen.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're not going to have to send this back to editing, are you?

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To make a change like that? No.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Get out of here. Go home.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Amen. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'll start at

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the top just so you can see everything. This is now a draft 4.3, reflecting I shorted us by five minutes, but it sounded 02:15PM today. Out of time I just wanna finish talking through. Will get 02:15. And everything remains the same compared to draft 4.2 with one exception, and that is on page five where we just discussed. So this is page five, now lines 17 through 18. Just on 17. So nondiscrimination, the department's decision not to accommodate a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals search, classification, or housing placement request shall not be based solely on the individual's anatomy, including the genitalia, other physical characteristics, or diverse gender expression,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and everything else. I think that clarifies that section a little bit better. I think you can't discriminate on one thing. Mhmm.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And just to scroll through the rest of the bill, everything else in the bill remains the same.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I wanna make sure, because Will wants to use one of his votes on Zoom today. Is he available?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: He said he's finding a place to pull over right now.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: No. I'm available.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Darn it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Be careful driving, Will.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I'm pull I'm pulling over.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okey dokey. And, Tate, I'm sending this to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you now. Just so So I would entertain a motion to vote out h five fifty draft 4.3. Was that the number? Sorry. 4.3.

[Hilary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'll I can bring it back up as soon I know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, that's fine. As long as I know. It's 4.3? Yes, 4.3. H550, draft number 4.3 to vote voted out favorably. So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not, please call the roll.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Conor Casey. Yes. Gina Galfetti. Yes. Representative Greer?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Yes. Representative Gregoire?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Representative Hedrick? Yes. Representative Luneau? No. Representative Minier? Yes. Representative Morrissey? Yes. Representative Sweeney? Yes. Representative Winter? No with explanation. And rep and chair Emmons. Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Nine two zero. Good work, guys.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: There was a lift.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, so you wanted to explain your vote? You don't need to, but you Okay, good. I voted

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: no because I think this is an ineffective way to increase the safety for these particular individuals. And I would prefer seeing the money and the time spent to increase the safety of all inmates. And I think there's some very basic ways that it can be done. It does take money. But it's gotta be a change in perception on how we treat our incarcerated. Rather than focusing on a few, I think all should be safe. And I think it's very feasible because they are in a contained facility due to their sentencing. So,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Brian? I

[Brian Minier (Member)]: wanna thank the rep from Ludlow for working with me on language when he wasn't gonna vote for anyway and everybody's hungry. Just also want to hit the point. I'm grateful to be on a committee where we can disagree, agree, ablaze and respect your opinions, Kevin, Joe.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I wish we could have gone alcohol. It's just we were on a

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: No, no, I understand.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Normally I would. But I think what Kevin says really opens the door for work that we can do when we're not under a deadline here to get something out. And that was one thing that I mentioned at the beginning here for some of these folks that were sitting in here have been incarcerated. And they shared some things with me at lunchtime that I thought was really important for members here in the committee to hear that feeds in a little to what Kevin was saying. And I think that's why I wanted them to come in probably sometime in April and really focus. And I think we can't change everything overnight, but these little steps here and there, like supervisory fees is making a big difference. The ID cards, driver's licenses making a big difference. Kids aparts making a big difference. There is a culture in corrections. It's really hard to change. And it's been ingrained there for years and years and years and years, and there's a stigma that goes with it. And you can't legislate that away. You can give them tools to work with. And that's the best thing we can do. I mean, I would love to change a lot of things in corrections that are happening. So I appreciate what Kevin said because he's absolutely right. It's how do we do it for the whole system? And yes, we do it bit by bit and chip by chip, but we get there in the end. We could never give up to get there in the end for that. So I really

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: appreciate it.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Also, like anything else, it's almost like an organism. So you can never be perfect. You can only get better, the dynamics change of what makes sense over time.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it depends who's in leadership of that particular facility. So that does change that facility operation. You change superintendents, and you have a whole different culture in that building. You change the commissioner at the top, and you've got a whole different culture from central office and what comes through down the line to the boots on the ground. You change some of the correctional officers that age out, that have been there for a long time, have a certain way of looking at things. They retire, you get a new group in that has different life experiences, different focus. That's gonna change the culture in the facility. So it's always growing. Sometimes it takes a couple steps back. Yep. Sometimes it will take more steps forward. But we're all going after the same goal that our people who are held under our state custody are held in a safe environment.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Hopefully, been safe.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Since government members won't have lunch. So thank you all for the work that you've done. The work we did yesterday was big. Help today. We're done.