Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Welcome folks. This is the joint meeting of the House Corrections and Institutions Committee along with the House Human Services Committee. It is Wednesday, May 6. And we are going to be going through a new draft that's been drafted for S-one hundred ninety three. This folks are very well aware, it's being worked on by four committees, at least three, if not four. And we're just trying to figure out how to combine the work that the individual committees are working on. And Eric Fitzpatrick has worked with House Judiciary. Katie McLennie has worked with House Human Services Committee as well as House Corrections and Institutions Committee. We're kind of at the point, particularly with the House Corrections and Institutions Committee, I'm not so sure about Human Services Committee, but we kind of have to see the whole package at this point. Even though the bill physically sits in House Judiciary Committee, we're all working on separate pieces of it. And we need to see the whole picture and then we'll figure out what the next steps will be. That makes sense.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, yeah. So let's just do, we always like to do a brief round introductions in our committee so that whoever is watching can tell who's in the room. So we're not gonna go all the way outside, but we're just gonna do around the committee. So represent steady, don't you start us off?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Representative Steady, Milton, East Milton, Westford.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: My name is Shawn Eastes. I live in Guildford, I also represent Vernon. Doug Bishop, one of Colchester's representatives. Good morning. I'm Dan Noyes.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Member)]: I represent Wilkite, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Velveteen. Hi. Good morning. Erica Guaya. I represent Rockwood City.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Hi. I'm Esme Cole, and I represent Hartford.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Member)]: Hi. Ray Garofano. I live in Essex. I also represent Essex Junction.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Theresa Wood from Waterbury, and I also represent Bolton Fuse four in Huntington.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Alice M. Emmons, and I represent Springfield.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: Shawn Sweeney. I represent St. George and the Northwest Part of Shelburne. Brian Minier from South Burlington. Kevin Winter from Red Cross, Shrewsbury, Mount Holly.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Mary A. Morrissey from Bennington with our executive pod district five.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Joe Luneau, St. Albany City. Will Greer from Bennington and also a member from Bennington. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: it would be great. We can have both the judge council members up. We need to pull up another chair, it looks like. This is probably the most colors I've seen, Bill. We have all the colors of the rainbow here. It's representative. As Chair Emmons said, anybody in the audience or tuning in from outside the building, you can find this on both of our committees websites on the human services under Katie's Katie's name and same in your Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So you're gonna put this up on the screen?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's exactly what I was wondering. That'd be helpful?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: That would be helpful.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: The B2 to read paper copy, it's really

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: covered up. Oh, I know the colors.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's green.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: The green and the blue is stuff. Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Well, if you used your iPad, you could see

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Eric Fitzpatrick, also Office of Legislative Counsel. Nice to see everybody.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I guess two disclaimers before we get started. One is that I have a couple bills on the Senate floor, so I'm gonna be off and back and forth. The second is that you'll see that we don't have sort of the normal lead in language that we have saying that this is a strike all amendment and which committee is offering it. I think Eric and I are still navigating this process. And I know you are also navigating this process of what will be offered by whom, when. So this is a compilation of work from multiple committees. This is a starting point. There are probably multiple adjustments that can be made as the committees talk about what's on the page. But you'll see that we have tried to capture different committees' proposed changes in different colors. To the extent that there are conflicts between committees, not quite sure how to handle those on paper at this point because we don't know which committee owns this document. So that's sort of where we are

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: right now.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Can you make that a little bit larger on the screen or not?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean covering more lines or do you need larger and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: larger print? Larger print.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Like that? Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Oh, that's much better. It's not like the committee room is saying a little fertile flag.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Well, I guess I'll jump in first. So House Corrections and Institutions had a conversation about adding this legislative intent language, that is that it is the intent of the general assembly that the Department of Corrections shall not operate or staff a forensic facility, with the exception that employees of the Department of Corrections may provide security around the outside perimeter of a forensic facility if it is co located on the grounds of a correctional facility. That committee also had a conversation about maybe having some of this language in the statute itself. So that is not integrated here, but that is something that might require more conversation as you see the draft.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Continuing on to section two now, and this is language that's been worked on by the House Judiciary Committee, stepping back from the words themselves just for a moment to sort of reiterate the big picture for the committees for a moment. And that's that this is describing who it is that would be placed in the forensic facility in the first place. And you'll see that there's some technical language that changed at the very beginning, that it's just using the word placed because these folks could conceivably be in Department of Corrections custody because, as you see in the very first subdivision or sorry, the second subdivision, they might be being held without bail. So they might be in a DOC facility in the first place. They could be under Department of Mental Health Custody, subject to an O and H, an order of non hospitalization. That could be the place where they are currently. So rather than specify that upfront, it's just saying that, well, the person would be placed there. So wherever they are prior to that, whatever status they are in prior to the placement, this is the qualifying criteria for who it is. So it's a universe of people that will go to the forensic facility. And I think the committee's probably been through these items a number of times, but just to kind of review them, this has to be punishable by a life sentence at subdivision one. And then they're either being held without bail, or if they're not being held without bail, they have to have a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to someone else. And they have to not currently be receiving treatment through an order of non hospitalization, sorry, an order of hospitalization. So, in other words, they're not currently in the DMH process being treated inside a hospital. But they could be, as I just mentioned, could be outside hospital being treated on an OH, or non hospitalization. You'll see that the prior draft also went And so, those folks are excluded, if you think about it. That's the way that language is phrased. They're not currently receiving hospitalization treatment. And the prior draft had also excluded folks who were subject to commitment to Dale. That's the Act two process. Two forty eight, sorry. So, people who were excluded in the prior draft were those who were subject to the Act two forty eight process. In other words, folks who were and this, I had this posted on the website. I'm sure the committee is very familiar with the language, which is someone who is found to be a person who needs custody, care, and quotation. And that language is incorporated here further along in the draft. So, in other words, although in the upfront portion of who is covered by this, you'll see the person isn't necessarily excluded right away, but there's an off ramp that's provided in the new draft that we'll see when we get to it, as well as a possible finding up front that the person would not be subject to the forensic facility placement if they're someone who has an intellectual disability and is otherwise would be subject to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: this Act two forty eight process.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's kind of the structure. You'll see, so what happens if the person has placed it? Well, in that case, they have a review. You'll see Subdivision 8 every six months. So they are perpetually at the facility without having their status reviewed. There's gonna have to be a review at least every six months, and then every six months thereafter. So six months from the date of admission, then every six months after an order of continued restoration treatment. But also, you see Subdivision B, and this relates in particular, can relate to the FACT two forty eight population that I just mentioned. You'll see, in addition to the six month reevaluation, there's also a reevaluation. Whenever the and this is some new language. Now, the Agency of Human Services medical director is the person who has the position that makes these clinical decisions at the facility. So if that person determines that the person committed there and you'll see that it's below the highlighted language is likely competent to stand trial or that it is unlikely that the person's competency can be restored. So, again, that's a determination that can be made by the medical director at any time. Could be day one. Don't have to wait for that six month initial period that automatically happens. So there's an automatic reevaluation at the six month date. But it could be day one, as I said, that the person is committed there placed there, I should say that the medical director determines that the person is not likely to have their competency restored. And that could be somebody who is subject to the Act two forty eight proceeding, because in other words, because of an intellectual disability, perhaps that person won't ever have their competency restored. That could be determined right away, or at least that the medical director determines that it's likely that the person's competency will be restored, then they could have a re evaluation right away. And court would have to see subdivision two there. If that's the case, court has to hold a hearing. So there would have to be a consideration of whether or not that person might be subject to release prior to the hearing. The results of valuations get given to everybody, the court parties. So, at that hearing, right, it's either at the six month juncture or upon the certification of the medical director. It could happen sooner. But either way, the court's gonna have to make a fine one way or the other. Either the person is competent to stand trial, in which case they would be You see, that's Subdivision 3A there. The court finds they are competent, then they get restored to the status that they were in before they got sent to the forensic facility in the first place, because the court's saying, well, now they're competent. Now they can be sent back to the criminal division for the hearing related to their criminal charges. Unless and that's some new language there. If the court finds that doing so is likely to cause the person to again become incompetent, because if it's actually transferring them away from the facility, the thing that's gonna render them incompetent again. Doesn't make logistical sense to do it. In that case, they could hold the person there pending the resumption of the criminal trial.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Eric, can you just review that one more time? I find this clause confusing. Can you say that again? Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the court set this six month period, say, or earlier if it turns out that the medical director thought it should happen earlier. But at that hearing, the court has to decide, is the person competent to stand trial with him? And if the court finds, Yes, they are now, maybe because treatment has happened or whatever it may be that has restored the person's competency, then the court restores them to the status that they had before they were sent to the facility in the first place. So, that might have been DOC supervision. That could have been DMH custody. Whatever it was, prior to them being sent there, court sends it back there. And then, having been found competent, the criminal charges can the criminal proceedings can resume, because they were on hold.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I get that part. I don't get the highlighted So,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this is a suggestion from the defender general. And that suggestion was that, well, if the and I think his testimony was this sometimes can happen, that if restoring the person to that status is the thing that will actually make them not competent to stand trial again, then the court wouldn't do that if it finds that doing so is likely to cause the person to again become incompetent. And instead, again, there being a finding that the person is competent. They stay there indefinitely, but they could stay at the facility until the criminal division was able to ramp up and start the criminal proceedings.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So all this really means is that they would stay at the forensic facility, wherever that is, whatever that is, And as opposed to being remanded back to whatever the prior custody arrangement was. Exactly. Okay. And I think the confusing part was likely to cause the person. So it sounded like absent the services that they may be getting at the forensic facility, they could return to incompetency. Is that essentially what that's saying?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So perhaps in a given situation, the person should continue to receive those services pending trial rather than being sent back to some other custodial status where they didn't get them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And I guess my only question would be then, if their competency is that fragile, just It's referred to as fluid. Fluid. Okay. Yes. That's another word. That just leaves me with questions. But I understand the words now.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, sure.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could I flag something here? Yeah. House healthcare has a different take on this. You'll see it later. So this is something all the committees will have to pay attention to as you move forward. And their recommendation was that somebody who's regained competency stays at the forensic facility pending their trial and for the duration of their trial. So you'll see that later on in the draft. You'll have to figure out how you want

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: to handle that. So I just want some clarity. So if they are deemed competent to stand trial, the court can order the person to go back to the same custodial status that they were in?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, Judge.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: And that would be at the forensic facility, or could it be in a correctional facility?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it would be whatever status they were in prior to being transferred to the forensic facility. So, other words, the court's finding, unless it finds that doing so is likely to cause them to again become incompetent. If the court doesn't find that, that transferring them out would cause them to become incompetent again. Unless the court finds that, then they would transfer them out of the forensic facility and to whatever status they were in prior to being transferred, placed there in the first place. Now, it could still be within DOC's situation.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Because they had been placed there first before they went to the forensic facility.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Is it conceivable that they were just in the community, and they went from the community directly to this facility?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think, yeah. Like, they could be on an o one h, for example. So

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: okay. Go ahead, representative Blair. Thank you. Everything. Can you can you share with me the exact legal trigger for placement specifically placement specifically? What court finding or status must exist before a person may be ordered to the forensics facility? And is there any pathway under the bill for placement outside of an act of Vermont criminal case?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did not follow the second part of your question. So let me answer the first part.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: The first part being, can you can you walk us through or just point the exact legal trigger for placement specifically? What court finding or status must exist before placement? Right, so that's the first several subdivisions under subsection A. So, criteria number one has to be charged with a life sentence, an offense with

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a possible life sentence. So, I can't remember if I ever distributed that to the committee. If it's not, it's on the House Judiciary Committee's website, web page. But there's between ten and fifteen offenses, criminal offenses in Vermont right now that have a maximum life sentence. So it would have to be one of those offenses. So that's criteria number one.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: So the first the the criteria is you've been charged with one of those offenses, legally charged. Correct. So that's the exact that's the exact trigger, the legal charge. Yeah. Okay. And then the the second piece, is there any pathway under this bill for placement outside an active Vermont criminal case?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean, in other words, there isn't a pending criminal case?

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: No pending criminal so I go back to the question that chair Wood was presented in regards, can somebody be taken from the community and placed into that facility without an active Vermont criminal case. The trigger is you need an active case is the trigger. Therefore, there would be no pathway for somebody to be placed in that facility without an active case. Well, that's true for for people with respect to the question of, someone being found incompetent to stand trial, which is the portion of the population of that we're looking at right now who could end up in

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the facility. And when I mentioned the ONH, I didn't mean to imply that that person would be in the community on an ONH in any other status other than with a pending criminal charge, because that absolutely is required for the method of ending up at the facility that I was describing. So yes, if the person had been charged with a life sentence and prior to the determination of incompetency that the criminal court has to make it's not in this bill because that sort of precedes this bill. But the criminal division has to make this finding of a person not being competent to stand trial. And as part of that process, a person could be, while the charges are pending, because an evaluation has to be made, and sometimes a person will be in DMH custody at that time. And in that situation, a person could be in the community on an LMA. That's what So, I yes, there is the criminal charge pending in that situation. It is also possible that, you may recall this, that in addition to the competency avenue to the forensic facility, it's also possible for a person to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. And for that, also for an offense punishable by a lifetime max, that has to be one of those offenses. But in that situation, technically, there isn't a criminal charge still pending. They were charged with a life offense. It's not still pending because they've been found not guilty by reason of insanity. But in that situation, you'll see when we get to it, there's language that provides a criminal division with continuing jurisdiction over the person to send them to the facility in that situation.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: So the term incompetence stand trial, is that a diagnosis?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It does. It's a legal term. Mean, is an evaluation for that, a clinical evaluation. And I'll defer to people with more medical experience than myself. It's a legal standard, not a medical one. So, the competency to stand trial, it's the legal In the legal definition of that, it's that a person either cannot understand the nature of the charges against them or they cannot participate in their own defense. So again, it's not a clinical medical thing. It's their ability to participate in the criminal justice.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: I appreciate that clarification, because the point I'm getting at is that the placement is based upon legal triggers, not diagnosis.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's see. Yeah, I think that's right. Thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Conor?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, think it's similar to a rep acquires question. I'll just ask it again there. So think the part I'm struggling with is you could have somebody incompetent to stand trial, but not accused of one of those triggering crimes that carry like a life sentence. But you could be somebody who has multiple aggravated assaults. You're clinically volatile. A clinician shows that. And you have a propensity to commit danger in the community, but you're not accused of one of those types of crimes. You're not eligible for this facility? That's correct. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a policy decision for you if you wanted to expand the list of crimes for which someone would- Yeah,

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I'm having trouble equating what your sentence of being how dangerous you are to the community rather than what a clinician finds you. So that's just a point I'm gonna keep trying to bring up. I think we're just kind of talking to ourselves and not targeting necessarily the most dangerous people who would need to be in a facility like this if we limit it to the sentencing and not the diagnosis. That's So ideal, it's a policy decision, but that's an issue I'm having for everybody listening.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Representative Steady has a question.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: More of a curious question. You say that they're the founding saying they can't stand trial. Correct. What happens to them now? Where do they go now? Well, I guess that's where I'm curious.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, right. They could, and it's kind of partially in response to represent Casey's question as well, provides a little bit of information, because there is an existing process, remember, if a person is found not guilty by raising the methsandy, and they're endangering themselves or others as a result of the mental illness. So it's a more narrow criteria, not from a legal perspective, but more from a clinical perspective, as a result of a mental illness. Or if a person is found like guilty by reason of Sandy and they are a person in care of custody and a notation, there are other methods now that the person could be committed elsewhere. For example, could be committed to the Department of Mental Health, could be committed to Dale, for example, depending on the basis for the person being found, not guilty, that reason, and Sandy. Well, it's the basis of the mental health condition. But there is, nevertheless, some folks who aren't covered by existing law. I think that some people, some proponents of the bill view that as part of the space that the bill is intended to fill.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So, would they go back into society then?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They could.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Okay, thank you. So, I think we have to be really clear of who would actually go into a forensic facility. You've got to look at one, two, three, and four, and all of those have to be in place. It's not an four. My place is an four is in two, where a person, they need to be charged for life sentence, a sentence punishable by life sentence, they need to be held without bail. Or if a person's not held without bail, you have to prove that upon the person's release would create a substantial risk, bodily injury, the person is not currently receiving treatment under an order of hospitalization, and the person's been found not to stand trial. Those four qualifications have to be in place. It's not one or the other. It's all four. Because you have an and, mine is on the bottom line above there. It's an and. Am I off base on this?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, you're exactly right. It's gotta be out four.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Go ahead, representative Cole. And then we're gonna have to beat moving because we have an hour and we need to get through the whole bill. I know, I know. Yeah, go ahead. I think it's pretty much questions that sort of, know, sorry, go ahead. Represent calls.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: One piece of this is it seems to me that if you meet all criteria one, two, three and four and the and included, but you are charged with a crime in a different state, for example, you know, there's nothing preventing that individual meeting all these criteria from being housed in the facility in Vermont, correct? If some kind of agreement happens between another state and Vermont DOC or not DOC apparently, because we changed that in the first section, but

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is your question, could somebody who meets these criteria for a forensic facility receive forensic facility type services out of state?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Yes. If the charge was a charge that happened in another state, basically, but maybe it met the criteria of a life sentence in either state.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean they committed a criminal act in New York since?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Yeah, or

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Were charged by the prosecutor in New York. I think, generally speaking, the Vermont courts would be without jurisdiction over a charge like that. So, while the language doesn't specifically exclude that situation, I think it would be a jurisdictional question of whether or not that person could be transferred to the French facility. It's an interesting question. Want to look into it a bit more, but I wonder about whether the court would have jurisdiction be. I don't have a 100% clear answer to this, so And that's the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: just before we move on, I want to make sure that I'm understanding three that's been struck out. Is that striking out people who have been Is not currently under Act two forty eight? Is that what 18 BSA 8,845 is?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, it is. And 4,823 as well. Okay. That's sort of a reference to But it's strike Sorry, go ahead.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So my question is, so if they're a person who has mental health challenges and is receiving those services through an order of hospitalization, they're excluded. But a person who is receiving services under Act two forty eight is not excluded.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not excluded under that provision, but there's another lengthy section of the bill that was added that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: That's a pathway out once you're This is, you don't get in. I think that's correct. I don't understand why that struck out. And I guess maybe I'll talk to the chair.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think that is policy decision. Yeah, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: All right. So we can move on

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: now. So, but that same question does sort of segue me. I guess I mentioned it earlier. But the person you're right that they're not being excluded completely in the first instance. But if the medical director thinks, before they've even started their commitment process, that it looks like the person's competency can't be restored, they kind of immediately have to request the hearing. So in other words, they don't have to wait the six months, necessarily.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: If they have already gone through the process and they've been committed to Dale, they've already gone through that process of determining their competency. So I'm just gonna flag this as problematic. Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that brings us, I believe we were at the sort of six month hearing, right? So again, as we mentioned, the six month hearing, if they find that they're competent,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: the court sorry. They Yeah, we were already down through we were on three b.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. So if they thought that we already went through, if they found that they were competent, then they go back for the trial. If the court finds that they're not competent, well, then they stay at the facility for continued competency restoration procedures. Again, remember, it's always subject to that six month review or a review at any time earlier than that if the clinical services director thinks they might be competent. So, this brings us to the restorability concept as well, because that's just about whether the person's competent or not. At any time, either a party or the clinical services director, as we mentioned, that could be right away after they are transferred there, they can ask that this reevaluation, this periodic reevaluation, include an opinion on whether the person is restorable to competency or not. And this is another juncture, because if somebody asks for that, then the court's gotta give an opinion on that as well. And there's another sort of you could think of it as a fork in the road at that point, because the court's gonna have to find, one way or the other, that if the person's competency can be restored or the person's competency cannot. So, you'll see here two options, subdivision two and three. If they find that the person's competency can be restored, then they, again, they order continued treatment. So, it continues on at the facility. But if the court finds that the person's competency can't be restored, then there has to be a hearing within 06:58. Because you think about it, you're in a different sort of universe now. Because now there's been a finding that despite all this treatment, the person's competency is not gonna be restored. And in that case, the court's got to make a decision about dangerousness. That's essentially what the decision is next. Right, if they can't be restored, are they dangerous or not? And in the big picture, before you look at the language, what the court is gonna be able to find is either the person is dangerous, so they may not be able to be restored, but their release would cause a danger to other people. And if that's the case, then they stay at the forensic facility for continued treatment. But it's a different type of treatment in which they are acknowledging that the treatment might be different, and they're then subject to a twelve month review rather than six month But if they find that the person is not dangerous, well, then the person has to be released. Because you think about it, they've been found to be not restorable and not dangerous. So in that case, there no longer is a basis for keeping the person at the facility, and they are released under supervision, under supervised conditions that are are laid out in

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: the statute for law. But that's the big picture.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Finding number three, though, remember, we're at this hearing of none whether the person's been found, whether whether or not the person's restorable, could be dangerous, nonrestorable, keep the person there under different treatment. Could be not dangerous, not restorable, person's released. Or it could be that the person would be subject to Act two forty eight. And that's the off ramp that the chair mentioned a few minutes ago. So that if it turns out that they're subject, because of an intellectual disability, potentially dangerous, or at least a prior conviction, then if they meet that definition of a person in need of custody, care, and habilitation, then they would go back to DAIL through the continued Act two forty eight treatment that is the case under current law. In fact, the language is basically tracked from the existing Act two forty eight language through this avenue of when a person would be transferred to get a jail's custody. That's the big picture. Any questions there before we look at the language? This

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: is a brief one. Go ahead. So does this still limit the eligibility strictly to individuals who are in the criminal justice system and found not competent to stand trial regardless of diagnosis, correct? Regardless of diagnosis, this bill is strictly for individuals who are in the criminal justice involved and found not competent to stand trial.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or not guilty by reason of insanity. That's the only thing I would add.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: It's a narrow group. Very, very narrow group.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay, thank you. So, prior to that sixty day hearing, there has to be a forensic risk assessment. You see, that's the risk assessment. Has to include a number of pieces, which you'll see itemized under subdivision B. Part of the language that's included in addition Sorry, added by House Judiciary and its most recent draft as recommendations for treatment and supervision that support the person's success mitigate risk of aggression and violence and or, relevantly to what the committee was just discussing, the examiner's opinion as to whether the person is a person in need of custody, care, the notation. So, remember, because I said that at this hearing, the court's gonna have to be deciding. Are dangerous and retained at the facility? Are they not dangerous and released? Or should they go back to jail through the Act two forty eight? And that recommendation that the examiner makes informs the court decision about whether to send the person back to jail. It's the decision based on the existing Act two forty eight definition. So, the court has all those evaluations, and then it's up to the court based on what the state's attorney can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence. If the state's attorney does demonstrate, and I just mentioned this, the person's dangerous, and remember, they're non restorable, then you see at the very top line of the page, if that's the case, then there's continued treatment consistent with the person's forensic risk assessment. So in other words, that treatment could be at the facility, but it might not necessarily be because the forensic risk assessment could be dangerousness as a sliding scale. It might be some sort of other placement that would be appropriate, And you'll see that language added, specifically, order treatment, which may include appropriate supervision and housing in the least restrictive setting consistent with the forensic risk assessment and treatment. So if that risk assessment is highly dangerous, shouldn't be released, likely to stay at the facility. If the risk assessment could safely be released under conditions, then that could be an option as well. And again, I mentioned that type of continued commitment is reviewed every twelve months. Agency of Human Services medical director has a role in determining whether or not And it's similar to the role I mentioned in the first instance. It's every six Sorry, every 12, or it could be sooner, the medical director sees a reason to evaluate it sooner.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: Does the Agency of Human Services actually have a medical director? The Agency of Human Services? I mean, there's medical directors in various departments, but I'm not familiar with the Agency of Human Services' medical director.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the witnesses would be able to answer that question more directly, but my understanding from testimony in half the judiciary was that the position is currently posted. I think that's what was testified to.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Position is currently posted.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I understood. The new position, in other words. I can't answer that one. Okay, thank you. Yeah. But if the essay does not demonstrate by clear convincing evidence that the person's dangerous, then the court has to order the release of the person. So that's where we're in now. The person is not their competency can't be restored, and they're not dangerous, so they are released. And there's this list of conditions that have to be or can be applied and set by, recommended by the medical director and then ordered by the court. That's the process. Person is released, and then the person who is released is

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: How's the word monitor there?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I just mentioned the periodic review every twelve months. And again, at each of those hearings, the state's attorney has to demonstrate by clear convincing evidence that they would be dangerous or they stay out of community. There's some language here about victims having the right to appear at these proceedings and present their views. That is like standard language that committees have seen in various court processes. So, now we're at the piece here. Remember I mentioned, so this is the part where the person could get transferred and recommitted to jail. So, because they've been found non restorable, right, and the court could find them dangerous and keep them in a facility, not dangerous, release them under condition of supervision, or option three, send the person back to Dale if they meet that definition of person needed for custody, care, and habilitation, and that's the intellectual disability language that I'm sure the committee is very familiar with. And now, all this language here, again, is tracked verbatim from the existing commitment to Dale language that's in the criminal code in Title 13. So, same finding, the same qualification for the person, if they are committed to it, they have the same rights in terms of receiving care and rehabilitation, applying for judicial review of their cases, etcetera. All that language is just existing law in Title XIII now at the front end of the criminal proceeding, now placed here, so that it's a possible off ramp for a person who's at the threats facility or a person who just got there. Now, you'll see, though, one line here, just I wanna point out. So, the person, see, The court shall commit the person to Dale. Let's get that bottom two lines of this page, unless subdivision B of this subdivision 6 applies. So just to point out how that works. So what is Subdivision B? Well, if the commissioner certifies that appropriate custody care and habilitation can't be provided now, that's language, again, that's right out of the current statute and the current definition of a person that needed custody care and habilitation that the commissioner has to certify that their designated program can be provided. But if, in this case, if the commissioner certifies that it can't, that that level of care can't be provided, then the person isn't committed to jail custody, and the court orders continued treatment at the facility until the commissioner does provide this designated program in the least restrictive setting. So, the Is that part of Action 48 now,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: the commissioner being able to certify that they don't have enough No, of that piece of

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the initial definition is, in order to be committed in the first place, the commissioner has to say that there is this appropriate level of care available. But this certification process, that part is not in the At least not that I'm aware.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: And so it's not saying permanently. It's saying until an appropriate program is developed, essentially. Is that what it's saying?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean not permanently at the facility? At the facility. Yes, that's right.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: That's right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there's an opportunity for review. Every six months. Every six months, or you'll see Submission two every six months, And the person has the right to petition themselves at any time, either ninety days after or not less than six months after the filing. And that language actually is from Act 48. That's the same opportunity for review that the person has under Act two forty eight. And there's a third, in a sense, review ability here, and that's down in Subdivision D. So, at any time, regardless of that six month period or whether the person has initiated their own review process, the commissioner can say, We've got a designated program available. Let the court know. The court then vacates the order and sends the first report. Well,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: and I mean, it is logical to presume that it would take time for a community program to be developed. So, I get that. So, I just want to

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: be clear, the commissioner, you were referring to was to mention Art Dale?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that's actually a subdivision either. In this subdivision, that's I see I'm missing the oh, sorry. Probably might have a missing quotation.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: All right. Go ahead, Representative McGuire.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: Thank you. Just clarification purposes. From what I'm reading, and I mentioned back in previous testimony, my significant concern with the governance. It seems like, and please, there is distinction that there is custodial authority and clinical authority separation. Is that a that a fair statement? From what I'm reading, that seems to be the case. I just wanna get that verified. Is that the case at this time? There was clear governance separation between the clinical authority and?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think you'll see later in the bill that it's the Agency of Human Services medical director that is responsible for the clinical decisions, the treatment decisions, that sort of thing. So, yeah, I think that is set out as part of that role's responsibility, as opposed to the sort

[Unidentified Representative(s) (multiple members due to diarization overlap)]: of custody The clinical director previously was answering to the commissioner of corrections, which didn't have that dual governance separation. Now, when I'm reading within this language, that is the case, just getting that verified.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the medical director would be answering to the agency of human services, which certainly does include the Department of Corrections. But, yes, it's an intent to sort of bifurcate that treatment role and the custodial role. Thank you. All right, so this is just some language I think the committee has looked at previously. While the person is at the facility, they get competency restoration services, generally speaking. Could be at another facility sorry, that they're provided at the facility. Again, this is some joint authority because, as I mentioned, the person could be under the supervision of one of a number of different departments, depending on what condition they have. So, you'll see here, this is who monitors. If the person's released, who monitors the person? Well, that will depend on the needs of the person. As appropriate for the needs of the person, could be mental health, could be commissioner of health, the bail commission monitors compliance with orders. And if the person is determined by, again, it's the medical services director, has reason to believe that the person's become dangerous again, then they can be returned to the facility after they've been released to the community. Commissioner notifies the court if that happens, and the court has to have an additional hearing to determine whether they should either stay at the facility or be re released to the community. This is the involuntary medication piece that has been in the bill for some time. No changes here other than, again, clarifying that it's medical services director, because then that's a medical treatment issue. Medical services director has to get prior approval from the court and clarifying that the state's attorney has the burden of establishing that by clear introducing evidence that involuntary medication is medically appropriate. Is a Can you

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: just remind me where clear and convincing comes in the hierarchy of It's

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the middle. So it's above preponderance, which is more likely than not, with below beyond a reasonable doubt, which no reasonable mind could differ. So yeah, So I think it's often referred to as substantial likelihood. It's the It's in the middle, right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: No, I represent Donahue had all rights.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a good question. Also providing new language to see subsection I, making clear that for any of these evaluations, the defense can be, has a right to conduct their own independent evaluation and introduce that result. This section two is more of a criminal procedure issue. We can look at it if you want, but it's I don't know if the committee has really been looking at this or not. It just provides the criminal court with the authority to dismiss certain criminal cases when there's been an incompetency finding and a misdemeanor, and it's been pending without any action for a long period of time. And this is the second universe of people that we're referring to. We just went through all the folks who were found incompetent to stand trial. This next section deals with people who are not guilty of every reason of insanity. And to be honest, all these changes are exactly the same as the ones you already looked at. They're not as many. They're very few because the proceedings are much more There's that off ramp for Dale supervision, that sort of thing exists in the competency context, but does not exist in the not guilty by reason of insanity. Because remember, in this case, there is no pending criminal charge anymore. And the only authority is that the that the criminal division is actually, you see that right there, subdivision two. The the committing court, that's a criminal division, shall retain jurisdiction of the person for all proceedings under the section. Because without that language, it's arguable whether the court has jurisdiction of this person anymore because they've been found not guilty. So there are no criminal charges pending in. So anyway, a different range of people who are subject to this, but the language is very similar. You'll see that same language in the forensic risk assessment that the evaluator has to make, establishing the requirement that the state's attorney establish by clear and convincing evidence that the person's dangerous, clarifying again that it's the medical director who's making these recommendations regarding the person's custody and dangerousness. The review periods are different if you're not guilty of a reason at Sandy. Rather than every six months, it's six months initially. And then there are periods of longer, three years after the commitment order, then five years after a commitment order. But a different piece of this is that the person can themselves apply at any time. That subdivision be there. They can always ask for a review. Again, establishing this burden of proof that we've been mentioning all along, pretty convincing. And then it's the medical director who is making the recommendations for how the person should be treated when they're released. I'll admit I'm going too fast, but I think that's all stuff that we already went through the first time. And now we're getting to some of Katie's language on the forensic facility. So

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in section five, House Corrections and Institutions was interested in a definition of forensic facility that came from a previous bill, a previous act dealing with the forensic facility. So I've tried to integrate some of the language from that definition into this definition here. One aspect of that definition is it has a forensic facility licensed as a therapeutic community residence. Human Services raised that not all aspects of the therapeutic community residence rule are the right fit for a forensic facility. So you'll see language later when we're looking at the feasibility plan that's asking about what specific amendments or waivers of the therapeutic community residence rule would be required to make it an appropriate fit for the forensic facility. So now, as a definition, we have it, the forensic facility is licensed as a TCR, where a person is transferred pursuant to either of the two sections that we just looked at with Eric, either not confident to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. AHS would provide competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment, and care for an extended period of time to persons with a mental health condition, again, still wondering who the complete population is who will be served here, who are involved in the legal system and who do not require a hospitalization level of care. So that is trying, again, to integrate a definition of forensic facility that was used several years ago in a previous act with the current content of what you're looking at in this bill. So, Katie, what's highlighted in blue

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: comes from House Health Care Committee?

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And I should be clear that they had a conversation and gave me some marching orders yesterday, they have not circled back to look at this language yet. So this is of making educated guesses. But they really liked the phrase, and you'll see it repeated a few times, pop it into respiration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment, and care to reflect what would be the types of services that would be occurring within the forensic facility. So that is where that language is coming from.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: We do have Representative Rebecca here from Household Care in case there's any questions about that.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then agreeing for the extended period of time. That comes from the statute that your committee was The previous act.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So I wanna make sure that I'm being clear about this because I'm trying to figure out how this comports to the previous sections that we were just looking So this says, with a mental health condition.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that is taken from the language in the previous act that did not include individuals with intellectual disability. So I guess I would flag that. Wanna I make

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: sure that I'm looking at, that I am interpreting what's written here with, you're flagging it as distinct and separate from what's above, which is important for us to flag. I personally don't have a problem with this language. I'm just making sure that I was reading it in the way it was intended. That's all. So how does this work with the front part of the book?

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that I'm awaiting clarity from all four what we would like to see in this section.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we both have. Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: that's fair. Thank you for flagging it. That's the other thing. We'll be back. We'll be back, yeah. Represent Emmons does not want to, know, she doesn't want to come between other policy committees and judiciary.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Not our lane.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I like that you inserted it though, representatives.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, well, just to kind of We went back on previous definitions of forensic facility, and that's what's incorporated here. It already had passed. Which one was it? Act It's an

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Act '27, you're gonna ask

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: the year. Maybe 2021? Yeah. And we wanted We had this in the Senate version, a definition, and then what had already passed became law. We wanted to incorporate portions of that definition into the definition that was in the Senate bill. Now, that's up to you folks, your policy folks, And those previous definitions came from the policy committees,

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So subsection B, this is language that talks about the different services that will be provided in a forensic facility, what a forensic facility might look like. You'll see the language. A lot of language isn't highlighted. This all came from Senate Health and Welfare and Senate institutions originally. But some committees have looked at it since then and added language. Just a reminder of where we were, this would be in the green books. So this would be statutory language that governs what a forensic facility would look like. You also have a section that's a feasibility plan. I know there have been a lot of components discussed. So if you don't see something in this list, it could be that it's something that you're wanting more information back on. So we have Secretary of Human Services. It's operating a locked forensic facility. That phrase again that came from healthcare for competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment and care of a person who has been transferred pursuant to the two sections that Eric went over. You have language from house judiciary that the facility's forensic clinical and competency restoration services shall be overseen by the AHS medical director. And then we get into this list itself, the forensic facility shall. So we have that it will be designed and operated in a manner that supports therapeutic recovery oriented and trauma informed programming in a therapeutic community residence to reflect the definition that was added up above. No changes in two. And three, provide safe evaluation, treatment, stabilization, and care of persons, including the ability to separate the population by sex or gender, unless otherwise address clinical, safety, or operational needs as appropriate. And four, another change by house judiciary. Follow the directions of the AHS medical director instead of the clinical services director to oversee these services. No changes in five or six. And seven, ensure that persons receive clinically appropriate assessment and treatment planning and competency restoration plans as appropriate. Few items from House Healthcare. Ensure that clinical services and programming include psychiatric care, management of medications, education about court procedures, habilitation and trauma informed care. Continue to provide evaluation treatment stabilization and care of a resident who has regained competency while the resident awaits space in the resident's trial. That's the conflict that I flagged for you earlier. Provide residents with interpreters as appropriate, and implement grievance and appeal procedures. So I'm gonna skip ahead. Do you wanna cover screen visit?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yeah, sure. So this is the consultation. Remember, as Katie was just saying, it's the Secretary of Human Services that has the overall operational responsibility for the facility. But this subsection E requires that they consult with the Commissioners of Corrections, Mental Health, and Dale, while performing all their duties under the chapter. It also clarifies that, it's the agency of human secretary sorry, agency of human surgeons, medical detector, medical director. I've been reading this for too many times over the phone, Who submits the reports that are required by this section, and that's the secretary that adopts the rules?

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This section

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Can I pause? Just hold here. In terms of on the the right section, section five, what we were working on, that becomes effective 01/01/2028. Keep that in mind when we start talking about the facility plan. I looked on the back and we've still kept it section five we just went through takes effect 01/01/2028. So keep that in mind in terms of the flow of time with the piece of the slate on the bill.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm going to cover this section six. This section six is not exactly what House Healthcare talked about. I made some educated beats based on the conversation. Who knows if they're going to like this when they actually see it. They had a concern that they wanted the mental health care ombudsman to have authority over individuals that were in the forensic facility. When I looked at that statute, it didn't list the specific types of facilities that the ombudsman would oversee. But it did say that according to this statute, that they would have different types of reportable events reported to them based on facility type. So I instead amended this section to include forensic facility as one of the reporting facilities to the ombudsman about different types of instances of death or serious bodily injury to individuals with a mental health condition or psychiatric disability who are in the custody of the care of the commissioner. So that's how I handled that. And then we get to the feasibility plan. So this concept originated with corrections and institutions. Healthcare had some additions, and I added an addition from human services that was discussed when I was in the room. So we have this coming back 01/15/2027 from the Secretary of Human Services. This is a feasibility plan to develop and operate a forensic facility, and it's coming to seven different committees in the General Assembly. It addresses the following: the proposed location of a forensic facility, which is to be independent from a correctional facility and, if on the same grounds as a correctional facility, separated by sight and sound the proposed design plan for a forensic facility that allows for the ability to separate residents by sex or gender and clinical need, the number of beds within the forensic facility, the entity or entities responsible for operating and providing services in a forensic facility, which shall not be DOC. After the next page, timeline for constructing a standalone forensic facility or fitting up an existing standalone facility to operate a forensic facility, estimated cost of constructing or fitting up a forensic facility, which aspects of the therapeutic community residence role would need to be waived to operate the forensic facility as a TCR. This could be also highlighted because the same issue was raised in human services. Clinical services available at a forensic facility, including on-site competency restoration services the proposed staffing levels, staff qualifications, and potential contracting needs necessary to establish a multidisciplinary clinical team at the forensic facility that reflects best practices, including required trauma informed staff training and multiple potential staff

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: links to the financial

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: institutions. Subdivision 10 physical and staff security plan, both within and around the perimeter of the forensic facility, including therapeutic design and clinical supervision that reflects best practices. Subdivision 11, resident discharge and community monitoring planning plan from each department with custody of individuals in the forensic facility that prioritizes community safety and provides residential, clinical, and case management services. And that was a concept discussed in Human Services, the residential, clinical, and case management services of somebody when they left a forensic facility. Subdivision 12, whether any opportunities exist for out of state placement of the forensic facility population in clinically appropriate programming while the development of a forensic facility in Vermont is pending. From Human Services, a plan for the expansion of Act two forty eight to include individuals with a cognitive disability. Subdivision 14, annual reporting metrics on the demographics, outcomes,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: and staffing of the benefit

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: facility. House Corrections and Institutions made a decision to pull out the annual report that came over from the Senate. The conversation that the cart was sort of before the horse, and if we don't know what the program looks like, we don't really know what we're should be asking for in terms of metrics. So health care has asked that part of the plan is for the administration to provide which metrics are appropriate for collection on an annual basis. Subdivision 15, any recommendations for legislative action to effectuate the development of a therapeutic trauma rented facility. And then, as we said, this plan is coming back next January, but there are two check ins prior to that. So August 2026, there are meetings of the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee, at which point the Secretary of AHS, a designee, would provide an interim status update on the development of this feasibility plan.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: I'm sorry, go ahead, Rob.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I'm curious, while the deputy attorney is here, are all the committees on board with having the Security of Human Services? Because to me, Commissioner Corrections would make more sense than any jurisdiction. So, all board committees wanting Secretary of Human Services, or is there a certain committee?

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I could answer that the three committees I have spent time in have all indicated they are not supportive of the Department of Corrections. That's fine. I think there's maybe still an open question whether it should be AHS or if there should be multiple departments providing the hybrid support. I don't know that that has been fully resolved yet. The

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: committee of jurisdiction for the Department of Corrections.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, this language came from us because we have some real concerns about folks being housed in our correctional facilities and under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. It's a very different world than folks that need medical care. And we know that our staff, correctional staff, are just not trained in working with folks who may be incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by recent insanities. And that's why we're saying come back with a plan. It's not a study. It's not a study. We wanna be really clear about this. Since there's been multiple studies, nothing has been acted on. We want something to be acted on. We're asking the agency of human services, we're dealing with folks under the custody of different departments, to come back with a plan to carry out a forensic facility. This becomes effective July 1. You gotta come back to plan from January, next January, we're in the Justice Oversight Committee and updates twice while we're off session. And then if we start working on this again next session, because that's the thinking, we have the plan that will be presented, legislature will work on it next session. And then the definition of the forensic facility that we just went through takes effect 01/01/2028. So the plan's gonna come first. What's your facility gonna look like? And you have to meet one through 14 now in that plan.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: The other thing that I'd wanna add to this on number six, the estimated cost of constructing or fitting up a rental facility. We need to add operating. I don't want to get into the same situation that we've been in around the youth facilities. So operations would need to be added to that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: And Katie, we also have to include BGS in some part of this because when you're talking about cost and number of beds and the design, we've got to somehow move BGS being the follow-up. Okay, I'll have the secretary consult with BGS. BGS, so I have

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to get involved with all

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: of it, but certain sectors, except they have to work.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services)]: So thank you for taking a look at this with us, for responding to all of our questions. This is the first time my committee's sort of seen an outline of the full bill. Same here. Me too. Yeah. So obviously the chairs are gonna have to put our heads together and make some decisions about timing and ownership and amendments and all of that. So we'll be back in touch about that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I think we're ready to go on Thank the you.