Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Dear. Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. We have what is legislative council. Has put together a little pull up sheet, tons of items that we've talked about in terms of what we would like to how we perceive approaching this issue of a forensic facility. And that would be really helpful today is to work through this with Katie to give her directions. Maybe Katie, you have to start drafting the amendment possibly for the bill. Thank you. Welcome.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Good afternoon. Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel. Let me share my screen.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Speaker 1]: So the last time we met, you asked for a document that Oops. There's Let's put an extra space there. You asked for a document that summarized your conversations on S 193. So this is my attempt to take what you gave me and kind of put it in one document. So three points here. The first is that you, as a committee, do not agree with the Senate that a forensic facility should be operated by DOC. Specifically, this committee does not believe that DOC or its contractor had the clinical expertise to operate a forensic facility. And the committee does not believe that a correctional setting is the appropriate placement for individuals eligible for services at a forensic facility. The committee recommends that a forensic facility be operated by AHS or jointly by departments with specific knowledge of the qualifying conditions that may lead a person to being placed at a forensic facility. The committee recommends the development of a forensic facility in a community based setting or alternatively, in a separate facility on the grounds of a correctional facility. In the interim, before a forensic facility building can be developed, the committee recommends consideration be given to out of state placements for individuals requiring competency restoration services or care that can only be provided at a forensic facility.

[Speaker 0]: So to stop there, does this reflect pretty much where we are or have been? Carl?

[Speaker 2]: I think it's an excellent job so far. Question For community based setting, does that I just wonder if it suggests that it's not secure. You know what I mean? Like, I feel better. I could see the press get a hold of this. They want to throw folks in the community, you know?

[Speaker 0]: A security. Because we have a They're being secure or staff secure?

[Speaker 2]: Maybe we just leave it at secure. You sure?

[Speaker 3]: They're different.

[Speaker 4]: Because we have a situation in Bennington where they put folks into a nursing home that is supposedly not secured, and these are folks that have not been able to be placed anywhere else because of the high need and the difficulties of what they're dealing with. You know, obviously they need good care and treatment and all of that, but you don't put them in a population with senior citizens and disabled and non secure. That's exactly why this is. Conor, wonderful lines thinking.

[Speaker 0]: The other thing too that we talked about was the concept that we really as a state need to look at a plant. We have a gap in that there is no program, there's no function of how we go about restoring competence. There's a real gap in that. And we talked about that as a committee that we really need to look at that piece as well for the restoration of competency. And it doesn't necessarily happen in a forensic facility for the whole. For some folks it might, but for the majority of folks for competency restoration, it's not gonna happen in the front seat facility. But the testimony we've received is there's a real gap in that. And healthcare committee received the same thing. Troy?

[Speaker 5]: Yes, I agree with you. Also bullet three, the second half of bullet three, I want to maybe punctuate that separateness a little bit more. I don't know if we need site sound separation necessarily. I'd be interested in considering that. But by separate facility, I mean separately function. Don't want them leaving the facility to go get lunch with the rest at a common cafeteria or anything like that.

[Speaker 6]: I didn't hear the answer.

[Speaker 5]: I didn't hear the answer. I don't want to envision going from that building over there to this building over here for lunch that also feeds Right? Right. Thank you. Yeah. So I want to really You want fully contained or fully individuated? Yeah. And maybe sight and sound separation is appropriate as well.

[Speaker 6]: I think I dig it, but what's your concern? Well,

[Speaker 5]: when I think about why have sight and sound separation required for juvenile facilities is part of that is we don't want to give this indication that that's where you're going if you don't straighten out. I want a separate process here, that this is a forensics rescue thing or therapeutic this is a therapeutic environment for the care and rehabilitation that's needed for that population. I don't want to indicate that once you're done here, you're going over there. Does that make sense? That's why I would do sight and sound separation.

[Speaker 3]: So how would that work, say, say this were housed at Northwest. I don't know if that would be the case. Say it works. How would that work for, say, outdoor recreation?

[Speaker 5]: Yeah, think that's a similar concern to lunchtime, right? Yeah. This is its own unit. This is not adjacent to the correctional unit. This is a forensic system. They are very specific, and we recreate there.

[Speaker 0]: But they have their own rec yard. They don't have their own rec yard. Another thing I could see is the optimum. But you would allow different populations at different times to be out in the backyard. They would not open.

[Speaker 3]: Yeah, that would probably make more sense.

[Speaker 0]: You can also set it up to the dining area, but there are different times that you go to their meals so that those folks who are in a forensic facility on-site will go to the dining hall. That facility only at that time and not being frustrated folks being there at the same time at different times. That's how they could also do. Don't need to come

[Speaker 5]: up with the details, but I would want AHS, if they're coming back with a proposal, I want to be clear that our expectations are that there's some pretty significant separation operationally and functioning.

[Speaker 2]: How far does sound go, Troy? Would that be just background noise or actually being able to talk to different populations through a fence or something?

[Speaker 5]: Definitely beyond the latter. The former, I don't know, like if I'm outside, can I hear that there's

[Speaker 3]: a correctional facility nearby? Think Well, it's just

[Speaker 0]: if you look at the layout of Saint August, you look at the layout of Springfield that's in there, you didn't offense.

[Speaker 5]: Yep.

[Speaker 0]: You know, I'm just kinda wondering. We had the plant ten years ago at Uncle Bay at Saint Albans. They had the forensic facility on that site.

[Speaker 5]: They actually had one there or they had the plans for the

[Speaker 0]: They had the plans for The Uncle Bay plan was ten years ago. That's when they were proposing an 800 bed facility up there, and what it was was part of those 800 beds facility. And part of it was going to be a forensic, and I don't and maybe worth looking at that and see how the forensic piece, where it was designed on that site.

[Speaker 6]: I didn't understand the name you were saying what was it?

[Speaker 0]: Al Gobay, he was secretary of the agency of human services. There was a plan that was put out 02/16017 to dig it up and maybe around here somewhere that the proposal was looking at the St. Albans site. And the proposal was that there would be a woman's facility on that site. And there'd also be a forensic facility on that site to use all the acreage.

[Speaker 7]: Not quite sure. I'm not an engineer.

[Speaker 3]: I don't know what to there's a reason we might have landed there, but I don't know.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I mean, we did it. I mean, the plan was something we made it one session. Absolutely. Absolutely, we lived at all sessions.

[Speaker 3]: I recall that from the perspective of the community.

[Speaker 0]: I think it was around 'sixteen, 2016.

[Speaker 5]: That's about right. 'seventeen.

[Speaker 0]: It's anywhere probably somewhere in this room. So we spent a lot of time with it. I didn't even have it at home. But the women's facility was there, the forensic facility, and I don't know. It's a separate building. It's completely separate. Might be worth trying to dig that up just to give some thoughts in terms of where the facility was going to be housed on that site and what was with it. Was there a dining room in it? Was it? Or did they?

[Speaker 2]: Emmons might know. He was working for Al at AHS at that time. Well, we've

[Speaker 0]: got that plan somewhere. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]: The plan was from the current governor's early, maybe first term. I remember the now there's the short term hesitancy in the in the community because what that facility was supposed to be when it was pitched to St. Albans down and what it is are nowhere near the same place.

[Speaker 0]: It's a Jeep mall.

[Speaker 5]: For

[Speaker 3]: juvenile. And And up in the late sixties, seventies

[Speaker 0]: for juveniles.

[Speaker 5]: That, would that include, like, you talking about you leave you know, the facility alone and

[Speaker 7]: you add these two things to that area?

[Speaker 0]: It was redoing the whole facility, because it was gonna be an 800 bed facility. We were going to close, I think it was bringing back our out of state male population. I think it was also closing Marble Valley and bringing all those folks up there. And then it was having the women's facility on that property. Wasn't all connected to the building. Was spread out

[Speaker 2]: on the

[Speaker 0]: property and a forensic And it was about 800 beds total. People freaked out. We're not building an 800 bed correctional facility. Everybody freaked out. Once you started digging down into what those beds were used for, it makes sense. But then it couldn't get past the center because everybody went out for practical to say a 100 beds. But if you really looked at it, it kinda made sense.

[Speaker 7]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So That plan is somewhere. That booklet is somewhere around.

[Speaker 4]: Nothing's done in here. Thank you so much. Okay,

[Speaker 6]: included a 12 bed unit for mental ill patients. The women's was 800. Anyway, that's roughly 2,000.

[Speaker 0]: And we didn't do it. We sent out everybody went apoplectic when we saw the number of beds and they stopped. Nope, we're not going there. But if you started looking, what it would be useful? But it might be worth finding out how that forensic facility was designed. So

[Speaker 1]: you've got some thoughts here, Katie, in terms of language for- hear you wanna, oh, for a draft or for updating this? Are you trying to put draft? Oh, you're okay. I'm trying

[Speaker 0]: to get a draft.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. You had wanted a feasibility plan. Is this part of a feasibility plan? Yes. Okay. Well, that's what the next number two on the list is, is a recommendation to submit a feasibility plan by January of this same year It addresses the proposed location, size of the facility, entity responsible for operating or providing services at a facility, and a timeline and estimated cost for the development of the facility. So I can build in some of these other criteria into what this piece of language would look like.

[Speaker 3]: Makes sense to folks? Yep.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. And then in Subdivision 3, you had liked the definition of forensic facility from Act 27 of 2025. Just include this on your document. And I cut and paste it so you can take a look at it again. I think some pieces of this definition assume decisions that maybe haven't been made yet. For example, who the population, what conditions that people would qualify to be in the forensic facility. Right now, this language is saying who is charged with a crime of violence against another person. The language that the Senate passed over was much narrower in terms of specific crimes that a person would have committed. And then who requires treatment or programming at a secure setting for an extended period of time. You might want to include competency restoration specifically. I don't know. So I guess what I'm saying is this probably served the purpose for what the thinking was a few years ago. But the proposal that judiciary has been looking at has a narrower population. And then you also really haven't The House hasn't come to a decision yet on who the populations are that are served in terms of their qualifying conditions. So this could be a template for you, but it would need some fine tuning. So

[Speaker 0]: just kind of thinking how this process is going to work with our inspected entities. And for the definition of forensic facility, it might be good to keep this definition. But also, it might be good to have a more updated definition that correlates what judiciary is working on in terms of what they're seeing who will qualify now and replace B with what's in. Bill, as it stands now with judiciary. And then the constant, the restoration competency does that need to also just happen in a forensic facility or that happens elsewhere as well. Trades. So that may need to be highlighted in the of forensic facility, the restoration competency. So we have two definitions out there that have been drafted. That's what I'm thinking. We have two definitions out there that have been drafted so that our policy committees can also weigh in. It's just a way of helping them focus is what I'm thinking.

[Speaker 1]: I think I need some clarity, meaning you'll have the one in Act 27 that would remain unchanged. Yep. And that for the purposes of this bill, you'd craft definition based on this that's more specific to the purposes of this bill.

[Speaker 0]: Right. And then people can decide which one, who they can meld the two. But some of that is beyond us. It's really our policy committees that need to weigh in too on the definition of a forensic facility. But if they saw what I'm thinking is if our healthcare committee and human services committee and our committee as well, but mostly healthcare and human services saw the two different definitions. They might be able to meld the two definitions into one.

[Speaker 1]: Or they may say this definition doesn't work anymore. The other one that tracks who would be eligible for the transit facility. This definition wouldn't match the work that is going on right now. I could use this and make changes to make it match. But this standing alone as is. But I

[Speaker 0]: think our other committees need to see that. Okay. That's just what I'm thinking. Because they're not at the level of testimony that we are. I mean, maybe I'm off base, but they've got to come up to speed in terms of where we

[Speaker 1]: are. Maybe I could make us a separate document as an appendix to show this definition. Okay. So you would like a feasibility study. I can draft that. Have you made any decisions I

[Speaker 6]: got it.

[Speaker 0]: I got it. It's not a study. You got to come back to the program plan.

[Speaker 1]: I haven't written the plan on this document. I'll remember. Do you want any language that's currently in the bill removed? Are you removing sections and replacing it with a feasibility study, or is that language banning? Okay. I mean,

[Speaker 5]: from the start of the bill, it centers corrections. Right?

[Speaker 0]: Well, the start of the bill is what? Due to jury work. Are

[Speaker 5]: they gonna take corrections out of that?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. What we're doing is We're doing a complete

[Speaker 1]: Yeah, I guess that's a good question because I'm wondering, are we gonna have two separate complete drafts? I think what you want, what feels like it makes more sense if you've already made the decision that Corrections won't be operating it.

[Speaker 0]: We haven't made that decision. You haven't made that decision. Corrections. The thinking is corrections is not operating.

[Speaker 6]: It's going

[Speaker 0]: to be the agency of green services. We're taking an away from corrections. Right?

[Speaker 6]: Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: So does judiciary agree with that?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, they're, you know, they're just looking at who would qualify for a forensic facility. They're not looking at where that forensic facility is.

[Speaker 1]: I guess what I'm thinking is the sections that Eric is working on will have to be changed if this won't be operated by a correctional facility. So you could take their work that they've done up until this point, and we could do a strike all and make that change. But then you have two different documents moving. So I'm wondering if it's better to sort of give house judiciary that recommendation and they build it into their next strike all.

[Speaker 0]: That would be the way to go.

[Speaker 4]: Right, that makes more sense.

[Speaker 1]: And then

[Speaker 0]: So it would start section two.

[Speaker 4]: I

[Speaker 5]: mean, first mention is in section one.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. One, three, and four are all forensic facility, and your name all need to be changed.

[Speaker 0]: Well, you'd have to change. What you change is on page one, a person shall be remanded to the Commissioner of Corrections for placement of the forensic facility. We take out the bandits of Commissioner of Corrections. Still going to a forensic facility. We just haven't got a plan yet in terms of who's going to be operating that facility.

[Speaker 1]: And it sounds like your feasibility plan is going to address that. Yes. So that is sort of an awkward drafting process because you're saying this person is going to be in the custody of someone.

[Speaker 0]: Couldn't we just say the person who shall be placed at a forensic facility?

[Speaker 4]: It's kind

[Speaker 0]: of broad. We haven't figured out who was going to be operating it. I

[Speaker 1]: feel like you wanna think more about that, but it feels like if the language that house judiciary is working on is meant to go into effect in it is missing big pieces, like who is operating it and how so, you know?

[Speaker 0]: But this but who's gonna go there isn't gonna kick in until the Flintstones facility is up to.

[Speaker 1]: One thought is to designate AHS for the time being. Another thought is to sort of have a tiered approach where you have your feasibility coming back before the language that they're working on takes effect so that you can change it. It's a possibility.

[Speaker 0]: Because we don't want it. We don't want that person to be under the custody of commissioner of corrections. Yeah. I understand. And that's the structure of the book. I think the committee is pretty clear about that. Right? But it's under the custody of the agency of human services. It's not under the custody of the regimes.

[Speaker 1]: There are just so many I'm not I totally I completely understand what you're asking for and why you want the commissioner out. It's that I don't know that this language works without having that point person. If the commissioner determines the person is not compliant, the commissioner shall notify the court when a person is committed. There's just a lot of responsibilities in this for someone who's not the commissioner of corrections, but you lose half the substance of the bill if there's no point person that's being identified to do those tests. I guess that's what I'm struggling with, is that you could just not identify anyone and say that people are just going into a forensic facility and not articulate who's operating it. But then you lose half of the substance of what House Judiciary is working on. So I'm wondering about designating someone like the Secretary of Human Services, have the feasibility plan come back to you in January, have the House Judiciary language take effect two years out, three years out, and then you have a window after you've made some decisions and seen the plan to amend that language if you want to.

[Speaker 0]: I think this is conversations that you, Eric, Martin, I need.

[Speaker 3]: Pagmatically, how could you have individuals housed in any format Department of Corrections facility site or not remanded to the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections in some way, shape, or form. How how would that work from a governance perspective? They have a separate site that that that that the commissioner has no oversight on?

[Speaker 0]: They could provide the security, but they don't have oversight of the people in that. It's operated from a different could be operated from DMH and Dale. They're under the custody of the Department of Mental Health, under the custody of the Department of Dale.

[Speaker 7]: Of I the

[Speaker 3]: would eviscerate any benefit of having the facility on one of those sites then, really. You might as well have a standalone facility anywhere at that point in time.

[Speaker 0]: You could, or you the unsafe within a directional property. It says you're secure. You already have the outside fence. I saw it work by point.

[Speaker 7]: I guess that's where I'm confused. I'm not. If AHS has responsibility within the facility, like then DOC has, if they're outside of the facility, that next layer, DOC's got control of that. There's no other way you could do it. They've got to be responsible.

[Speaker 0]: Right. DOC's not in the driver's seat in terms of rulemaking.

[Speaker 7]: They're not in the driver's

[Speaker 0]: seat in terms of letting the court know if a person has been, competency has been restored. Right now, the commissioner of corrections is in the driver's seat for all of that. We're saying that is not appropriate.

[Speaker 3]: I agree on that. That very narrow question is. But you wouldn't have third party directing at what time people go to lunch that are in that facility.

[Speaker 0]: That would be the operations of the facility. So if the building is a separate building on a campus of a parent correctional facility, say they share a dining room, okay? It's DOC that will determine what the times are for folks to come eat their lunch or dinner. It's not the operation folks of the forensic unit that will make that determination. They would do the agency of human services folks who do all the programs and staffing of those folks probably in that that building. But it's a building that's built secure. It's within a secure setting with an outside fence. And those are the logistics of it, but have to get worked through. That's why we're saying come back with the plane.

[Speaker 3]: So when the commissioner testified, regardless of the governance, he said that it wasn't even feasible to get Northwest for there to be a forensic swing if I recall this testimony properly. So here's the division and study of a separate building.

[Speaker 0]: So we got a face here on this?

[Speaker 3]: I mean, I think that, well,

[Speaker 6]: we heard testimony, I believe, last week, maybe it was a week before, and it all blends in to the some other state had a facility just like that, where forensics was inside a correctional and I'm getting shakes, it's good that I remember correctly. So I mean, don't necessarily have a problem with that. It seems to me more logical, but that's my limited knowledge on the issues from here. We talked about it upstairs, but we never really get off the board. They didn't go very far.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So

[Speaker 6]: I know what it does, but this idea of co mingling, not co mingling, but having it inside a facility, when we heard about it last week before, whatever it was, it was the first time I've heard it. But if other people do it, maybe it's worth looking at. I definitely agree that, at least in my opinion and from my basic knowledge, that I don't think it should be under DLC control.

[Speaker 2]: This AHS report's great, by the way. I just sent it to everybody. It's 36 pages. Airlines with different states, though. It's for the big campus plan.

[Speaker 0]: Envisions a

[Speaker 2]: 50 bed forensic facility that broadens the criteria.

[Speaker 3]: Nine fifty total beds. Computer Yeah. Good stuff. There was some good stuff.

[Speaker 0]: People got hung up on the bed count. But there was 800 to press for it. That's what I remember. And the other may have been a women's facility and the forensic. Charge it? Yeah. Good,

[Speaker 7]: I opened it up. What I'm still wrestling with is, what's the best case scenario that we can actually accomplish within this section? These are all great thinking, with your experience, what do you think we could actually get done?

[Speaker 0]: Plan. Okay.

[Speaker 7]: So the gap remains. We've got ideas about the plan. The eight fifty bed facility was a plan back then, but it got scrapped. So we're reinventing that wheel again as opposed to coming up with an interim solution. We're not trying to come up with an interim solution at this point.

[Speaker 0]: Your interim solution will be your permanent solution.

[Speaker 7]: Oh, but we are agreeing there's a gap now so that's not a permanent solution.

[Speaker 0]: What the gap is, is there is no process. They're not all gonna end up, you know, do this bill for who will qualify for a forensic facility. Those are just a tiny little piece of folks who go through the court system for competency restoration. It's either a non hospitalization order or hospitalization. So ninety five percent of those folks don't won't even show up under the current structure. The issue is there is a gap out there in terms of how competency is received. That's the testimony that was presented here. That's the testimony that was presented in healthcare and the chair of healthcare was really upset last week. There is no program for restoration of competence. That's been swirling around for years. And we're saying, let's try to grapple with that. At the same time, we know that there is a need for some limited number of folks that need a secure setting that may never gain competency or may be deemed not guilty by reason of insanity. And that facility might be able for those folks who come in under the qualifying conditions, the house judiciary sport time, we could have a restoration program for that facility specific in there for those specific funds. So you've got the more community wide restoration competency program for folks who were never going to show up, might not show up in corrections under the court order. We got different paths out there.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah, just a question for both of you probably on it. So we got the rulemaking process currently in S-one 193. Those are questions that replaces that. It doesn't It's not a parallel track.

[Speaker 0]: I get rid of the forensic definition, it's 103, rulemaking. And then if a person is released into the community, what the bill says is DMC would monitor, we haven't really we haven't really discussed that as a committee. Is that the leader?

[Speaker 5]: My thoughts, yes.

[Speaker 0]: Good thoughts. So if a person has if there's a forensic facility, and maybe that needs to be part of the plan coming back.

[Speaker 5]: I think part of the plan is, and the defender general brought this in, if we do have folks in the community who are qualifying for forensics treatment, but not necessarily in the forensics facility, He envisioned a team similar to PMP, but made up of folks and again, this is a very small population, much smaller than PMP who would be able to provide clinical assistance to getting them to a place of competency within the community.

[Speaker 0]: So maybe that should be included in the plan. They come back to us January. They plan to monitor folks who are released from the. But it's not DOC. I don't want them to come back. We don't want them to come back and put them on. DOC is gonna take care of us.

[Speaker 5]: I would like to be very explicit about your plan should not be, oh, we're just gonna hand it off to DOC because that brings us right back to where

[Speaker 0]: So

[Speaker 1]: that's the part we have to, I think,

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Because again, if you don't have another entity doing that, then you're

[Speaker 5]: Can we in ResMed?

[Speaker 1]: Oh, just the monitoring piece. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 0]: It's the monitoring. Again, I think you have

[Speaker 1]: to coordinate because those are the sections they've been working on. But I can include in the feasibility plan an alternative recommendation.

[Speaker 5]: But can we invent a non DOC entity that provides this custody? This is back to your original

[Speaker 0]: Oh. Not the I'm sure

[Speaker 1]: you could designate another entity. And then once you pass it, then you have to amend it if you want to change it. But I think that's the challenge.

[Speaker 0]: Well, no one between now and next year at this time is going to be in any forensic facility. Anyone is going to be monitored at the community until the forensic facility actually takes hold based on the agency of human services plan that they present to us next year.

[Speaker 1]: Unless you're looking for you talked about an interim solution of sending individuals out of state. Is that part of your plan?

[Speaker 0]: It's kind of what people are interested to see if there's any options out there for out

[Speaker 1]: of state placements. So that should come back as a report back on the plan if there are opportunities for out of state placements. Okay. Got it.

[Speaker 0]: So we definite definitely will change the definition And of forensic we will take out the rulemaking.

[Speaker 1]: I'm guessing you'd probably take out all of the criteria. Well, maybe oh, I don't know. Right now in section four c, no, where is it, four b, section four b, pages bottom of 15, top of 16, These are all the criteria that the forensic facility should have. Do you want to leave that in, or do you want that to be part of a plan that comes back to you?

[Speaker 3]: Screening that quick.

[Speaker 5]: Mean Is this where you would put the new definition? Not new, but recycled definition?

[Speaker 1]: Yes. I mean, that's where it is now, an A. Right. Okay. So it would replace it there. So

[Speaker 0]: That's really what best narrow look of our bill. We want to continue picking it narrow. Bennington?

[Speaker 5]: Yeah, I would. There's references to corrections in this section, though, too. 2B? Or no, it's not 2B. It's bottom of page 15.

[Speaker 0]: Well, that's Yeah, that would have to be changed. You've got to change that.

[Speaker 1]: But the list of all the things that should be part of a forensic facility, designed and operated in a manner that supports recovery oriented and That's where you'd

[Speaker 0]: have those two definitions. I'd have this definition here. Right. But then this one, would you take out, well, you take out Department of Corrections provides, you replace that maybe with the agency of human services.

[Speaker 1]: Right, but the list on page 16, would that stay in or is that part

[Speaker 0]: of Qualifying condition? No. Page dot 16.

[Speaker 1]: The list of what is part of a forensic facility. This is separate from These the are clinical considerations that would be part of a forensic facility. Does that stay in, or would you like that to be part of what comes back to you?

[Speaker 5]: I'm reading it right now. And so far, I haven't found anything that I'm concerned about aside from the references to corrections. But I did not finish those. We're going into 17. So when you get to, like, page 18

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. You got it.

[Speaker 5]: Line one. Whatever we're now substituting for commissioner of corrections, that regular consultation, that one gets a little funky with the reimaging or the re envisioning of what we're doing. And then you're taking rules of adoption out in page eight, Brian.

[Speaker 1]: Seeing section five out.

[Speaker 5]: Wait, am I in a new section here?

[Speaker 1]: I'm looking at

[Speaker 3]: I'm looking at page

[Speaker 5]: 18 line F.

[Speaker 0]: Lines one through five.

[Speaker 5]: Specifically four and five.

[Speaker 1]: You still, I think, would want to direct them to implement rules in the statute. Even if you're not.

[Speaker 5]: So AHS.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. That's where the coordination with test judiciary comes in, because to start amending some sections but not others, it's complicated. So maybe it's that you're doing a joint strike all with the two committees for your next draft, and those changes could be integrated. But I think if you're working on an island, you're not gonna get what you Right.

[Speaker 0]: I want work on an island. That's what I'm thinking. Figure out what direction the committee is looking at. You and Eric and Mark and I can sit down and figure out what's the best way to approach it through the draft. But the question is, the definition that's currently here, the forensic facility, we've looked at the definition of this place in Act 27, and we liked that definition last week. So that's what's here in the bullets. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: So I. Okay. Sorry, I interrupted.

[Speaker 0]: No, no. And then we have the definition here. I

[Speaker 5]: like Katie's suggestions of using the definition on the bulleted list that she gave us today, but tweaking that to accommodate the rest of the bill. Because right now, that deposition was done a few years ago, absent of some of the context in this bill. And then inserting that appropriately into, looks like it would be page 15 in and around line four right now. Somewhere in there is sort of good. But then the rest of it works for me.

[Speaker 0]: So back to any of this?

[Speaker 5]: No. Use that as a template, to Katie's suggestion. I like that idea. Are we on the same page, Anne?

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. I think just to plunk this definition in on this bulleted page, it no

[Speaker 0]: longer fits. It doesn't fit.

[Speaker 1]: It doesn't. But I could use this as a template and input some of the decisions that have been made in its judiciary, and then it would work.

[Speaker 5]: And then the rest of this section, the forensics facility definition section, so page 15 onward, has a lot of stuff in there that works for me as long as we remove the corrections components to it.

[Speaker 0]: Bring that into our new definition. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: Yeah, I've not seen anything on pages fifteen, sixteen, 17 that shouldn't be there, aside from the correction preferences. I don't

[Speaker 6]: want to speak to the

[Speaker 5]: committee, but yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Anything that should be added based on your conversation?

[Speaker 0]: So are you also in that, right, including little a one, which includes capital a?

[Speaker 6]: Okay, Troy.

[Speaker 0]: You're also including four through 10, times four through 10 in the new definition.

[Speaker 5]: I think we're replacing that. We're inserting the pending comp. Yeah, that's coming out of that. And then to your last

[Speaker 0]: Finance starting qualifying Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: And then to your last question, some of this stuff might fit in there as well.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah, that's what I'm sort of wondering. For example, on page 16, B1, it talks about being and operated in an environment comparable to a community based residential treatment setting. And based on what you've talked about, it sounds like it could be a community based setting if it's not just comparable to. So those are some of the nuances I'm sort of wondering about.

[Speaker 5]: And that's where we would separate out the clear operational separation from DOC if it ends up on do you know what I mean? Some of the stuff that is in the margin here might fit in there as well.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. So would you like me just to go ahead and try to make some of those changes? Okay.

[Speaker 5]: This is where that stuff belongs, right? Like we're bringing this up?

[Speaker 1]: Well, if you have made decisions To the extent you've made decisions on what a facility should look like, yes, they should be in the statute. To the extent you're still thinking it through and you want more information, then it should be in the feasibility plan.

[Speaker 6]: Gotcha.

[Speaker 5]: Right. Right. Right.

[Speaker 0]: I've what I'm thinking, we're thinking that they need to see graft of it all kind of together in terms of our part of the world to really understand all the moving pieces. So I think right now members are getting lost. Brian, base?

[Speaker 5]: I wouldn't say I'm lost. Mean, lost.

[Speaker 2]: It's a little

[Speaker 3]: confusing with talking about the two parts of this, yeah.

[Speaker 6]: People are confused by

[Speaker 0]: getting lost.

[Speaker 2]: I'll say, kind of general discussion of what I'm getting hung up on still is, and I'm guilty of it too, saying that a clinical setting is the best place for this population. I think a lot of us are on that point. Why is a clinical setting not the same for other people who are incompetent to stand trial for a lesser crime? I feel like I can be a bit of a hypocrite talking about this, right? I just want to get that on the table. I'm reading this other plan. It said 50 beds before because it encompassed those people. Just because you committed a lesser crime doesn't mean you should be in a prison setting while you're going through a company exam as opposed to these folks, right? I just want get on the table. Which we

[Speaker 5]: talked about that, Dana. I

[Speaker 0]: mean, it really opens up the floodgates and discussing a forensic facility that houses within the very narrow population that the bill talks about.

[Speaker 2]: Because you're talking about two different things. I think when some people talk about this, talking about protecting the general population from the folks who qualify for this forensic facility. But on the flip side, you could be talking about people who are, in some cases, going through this and, you know, could be victims themselves in a larger prison setting.

[Speaker 0]: We don't have that conversation or something.

[Speaker 2]: It does. And I accept that this is probably more judiciary than ourselves, but it's hard to talk about this without thinking of the size of the thing.

[Speaker 7]: If we're going to object to the immediate solution for a very small population, because we can't do it for the whole population. We're doing what the last 10 sessions have done. They just keep kicking it down. Yeah, I just agree with that. I also think it's not a

[Speaker 2]: good use of like tax dollars if you built a very expensive small facility. And then a few years later say, let's put a $20,000,000 agree.

[Speaker 7]: But the point is, we're just not solving the problem that needs to be solved right now to protect the community and address this very small population. We can have dreams about less of things that we want to do, but if we don't ever fix the immediate problem, we're not doing our job.

[Speaker 2]: Well, think regardless of whether the legislature or the administration, we've built in planning time right, the administration built in rulemaking in S January.

[Speaker 6]: I

[Speaker 2]: agree. Replacing that with the feasibility study. So either way, it's gonna take time. We just take that time to do it right.

[Speaker 7]: I told them we don't like what they're doing with the rulemaking or the evidence.

[Speaker 0]: The Well, slavery is finally grappling with this more facility. It's under so small. This population going in there was such a palatable. Down and keep the branches disobeyed. Then later on, the looks like you're gonna open up with the block. Could happen in a year or two quite easily. They're an S-one 193. But then you'd be housing more folks in the incarcerated site. That could happen quite easily. They're already there. Let's open it up even more. We're having patents with five or six people over year on top of years, so eventually you could turn into 15 people. First rate of setting under these limited qualifying issues. And we'd still have a problem with it being under DLC custody. The issue is DLC custody. That's the issue. Doesn't matter if it's two or three people or if it's 50 people.

[Speaker 6]: Yeah.

[Speaker 7]: For individuals who've been charged with a crime that would result in lifetime incarceration. If they are competent but they haven't stood trial, they are under DOC, right?

[Speaker 0]: They're detainee and they're working with an employer to get to trial. So they are competent to understand that and they're competent in terms of their conversations with their lawyer.

[Speaker 7]: I understand that. But the answer to my question is yes, they're under DOC.

[Speaker 0]: Because they're competent. Right. They understand the process. Right. That's the reason.

[Speaker 7]: And why are they why are they being held before they've actually been sentenced or found guilty? Because we're protecting the the the citizens that we're protecting the citizens. That's why we're holding them even though they they haven't been found guilty. So, for this very small population, is either incompetent or clinically insane when they committed the act, we need to be protecting the citizens for the

[Speaker 0]: same reasons. And we need to protect their constitutional right as well, the person that's being held. The person who's being held for the same type of crime as competent, understands why they're being held. And they are understanding the court procedures and the conversations with their lawyer. Folks with those same crimes who are being held without bail, who are not competent, may not understand why they're being held, and cannot understand what their lawyer is saying to them and what the process will be. That is the difference.

[Speaker 4]: Okay, good luck.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, Katie, what a big deal.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. So for next steps, I think the feasibility plan is discrete and standalone. So I can start drafting that now. The changes about who will take the place of the commissioner and how to change the definition of forensic facility will depend on conversation and work with house judiciary. So I will start on the plan piece now. I will wait to have a conversation with the chairs and with Eric to put together that sort of the second and bring back one comprehensive strike all maybe to both committees.

[Speaker 5]: Glad Okay. You're on the job.

[Speaker 4]: She's now

[Speaker 2]: She's not.

[Speaker 0]: Not. You're right. You're a couple more weeks of obsession.

[Speaker 2]: You should just start with a mad libs puzzle for us today. You would like the facility to be blank.

[Speaker 3]: Etiquette.

[Speaker 1]: Maybe you had it upstairs? No, but I'm scheduled tomorrow with human services and there's so I'm not sure the timing and how the different pieces will come together, but I know I'm sure they will.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, they'll come together. I'll be messy for a little bit. Now all of a sudden, just Okay. So if we put maybe tomorrow, I'll try to get something with Eric, Martin, and myself in here.

[Speaker 1]: And then let me check my calendar.

[Speaker 0]: And then I know on Thursday, the four chairs are getting together. They I could do

[Speaker 4]: Well? We're only getting together. Maybe a 01:00. Oh,

[Speaker 6]: you're in

[Speaker 0]: the floor at 01:00.

[Speaker 1]: A 01:00 is a possibility for me, assuming that the Senate is gonna start a video bill.

[Speaker 0]: That looks like your Okay. You may have to all the floor. I'm not sure.

[Speaker 1]: Are you able to touch base with the others and see what their schedules look like? Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Probably sorry. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 6]: Thank you very much, Katie.

[Speaker 0]: You're amazing. Because I was for a quarter after

[Speaker 6]: two

[Speaker 3]: weeks, we're