Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: You're live.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Hey, welcome folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. Today is Thursday, Thursday, May 21. We're meeting, it's little bit after 04:00. We're meeting on S-one Hundred 93. We have with us today the chair of House Judiciary Committee to talk to us about some of the work that they've been doing over the past few days and to lay the groundwork for an amendment that we're gonna see to the bill tomorrow morning at 08:30. So Martin, welcome to the

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for having me.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: So Martin Malone, a representative from South Burlington and chair of the House Judiciary Committee. So, I'd like to thank your committee for all the work that you did and have done on this bill. And it really, I think, came a long ways. I think our committee, I think it's fair to say, I can talk with respect to my read of our committee, is that we were very concerned about what was going to happen in the interim while we were waiting for a forensic facility. And appreciate the work you did on that particular issue. And that's been kind of just to kind of talk a little bit procedurally where we are at the end of the session, where we might only have a couple more days or a few more days, please, please, that I've been in ongoing conversations with the chair of Senate Judiciary as well, which also has overlap with corrections issues, just to try to understand where they are, to start kind of preparing where we might end up in conference committee. And I really felt the place that we were going to have probably the most negotiation and really the focus was going to be on what do we do in the interim, and have had conversations with Nader kind of just explaining that without really having an idea just knowing that this was an area that we I thought we should address. So when Tom Burdittenden, when we started looking at it today at 11:00, it was along the lines of where I thought we should be going or really talking about in conference committee, because it really is focused on the interim. Are we going to do between now and when there's a forensic facility? And that's really critical because we know that we have these individuals who are being held for some period of time, could be a long time as well, who have been found incompetent to stand trial and they're not getting any services. They're not getting competency restoration services. My understanding is they don't really get forensic risk services either. You have to be convicted to get the full panoply of services from the Department of Corrections. So, it's like, what do we do in the interim? What I saw with Tom's proposal really I thought would get us there. So I had conversation with Nader, with the chair of the chair Judiciary, and had a discussion about an idea of how to take what representative Burditt came up with, to maybe be able to bring this to the finish line without conference committee. And I had the discussion with him, and he felt that it was something that they could concur on, which I think is an important part of why I'm pressing this at this point. So the basic concept is that to service these individuals, while we're waiting for the forensic facility that we want to take care of these individuals in the interim, Department of Corrections has to have a lot more involvement than what we are anticipating for when there's an official forensic facility. So this would have rulemaking, emergency rulemaking, rather than just having the feasibility plan. It's really expediting this, having a rulemaking for Department of Corrections to be able to provide the treatment to have the victim notification. Not Department of Corrections. Let make also very clear for the treatment to be occurring in the Department of Corrections facility because that's where they're going to be until we have a facility. It's not DOC. It is the A. H. S. Medical director is in charge of all the clinical components of it. DOC would have more expansive responsibility than when we get to a forensic facility for the security because they're going to be presumably getting treatment in DOC in the interim because we don't have a place yet other than that. And I think it would be a disservice to not take care of those individuals while we're trying to get to the forensic facility. It also would have DOC having more involvement in the supervision of any individuals who have been found not restorable, not dangerous, and released under conditions that they would have more involvement in the supervision than we would anticipate again when there's a forensic facility. So the concept is that the sections of the bill, we've seen it now, mainly section two, four, and five, would have changes to allow Department of Corrections to be involved the security and in the monitoring. Again, not in the actual providing the treatment. And that would sunset in July '29. And the sections two, four and five that we have in the version that we have passed out, version 7.1, would go into effect on 07/01/2029. And so that's the main thing. Facility feasibility plan would largely be what it is right now. The only thing that would be taken out would be Section 12B, which would essentially be replaced by the rulemaking. So again, the concept is, I can't reiterate this enough, we have these individuals who, for public safety reasons, are being held, and we need to try to provide them the treatment for both the forensic risk and competency restoration while we're working towards a forensic facility. I'm happy to answer as many questions as I can. The language is still being drafted currently by Eric Fitzpatrick. Just want to

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: be clear for folks. So in our feasibility plan, which is section section seven of our bill on page 27 for folks who may be following along, we we were concerned as well about the interim situation. So we did two things. We wanted this is in the feasibility plan. We wanted the agency of human services to look the possible out of state residence placement because we didn't want people languishing in our DOC facilities like they are. And we also wanted a plan to come back for a competency restoration program within the correctional facility provided that the entity is not contracted under DOC. So we were very clear there could be a restorative program offered and put in place, but it would not be DOC providing that. You've kept that separation? Correct. Yeah. And what you have done is that this interim competency restoration program, it would be done by the agency of human services. It would be in a correctional facility for those folks who are currently there. There would be emergency rules promulgated to implement that program. And who would go through rulemaking? Is it DOC or the Agency of Human Services?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Agency of Human Services with input from all the departments that are under A. H. S. DMH, DOC, Department of Health.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So you would strike B, 12B, from our amendment?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: That's the only thing that comes out of the feasibility plan. Correct.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So then the next piece is monitoring in the community. And we had that as part of our feasibility plan as But it wasn't DOC that was the lead entity for monitoring. These folks are detainees. They're not under the custody of DOC. If they're not competent to stand trial, they have not gone to trial to be sentenced. So they're basically detainees. Detainees are released from correctional facilities. They're not under the custody of DOC. So what we did in the in the feasibility plan for monitoring in the community for folks who are released would be those departments who have custody of the folks in collaboration with DOC. So are you keeping that same structure

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: or not?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: That flips in the interim. In the interim. It happens Little to July 29. And the reason for that, is our experience in the fact that DMH needs that time to figure out how they are going to be involved with that because they do not supervise or monitor very well unless somebody's hospitalized. So it does have DOC in collaboration with those departments, Dale Department of Health and Department of Mental Health, doing the monitoring when they are released, anybody is released under this bill.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: And is there rules being promulgated for that, or is DOC doing Policy issues directives for that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: That's a good question. I don't recall off the top of my head if that's part of the rulemaking or not. Let's see. Yeah, I mean, yes. Standards for quality assurance and improvement in clinical oversight, documentation and reporting requirements, safety and risk management protocols, and mechanisms for monitoring compliance.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Mechanisms for monitoring compliance, but is that being interpreted for for monitoring out in the community or while they're in the facility? That's a good question. So that could be interpreted either way.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I mean, we could make it clear, monitoring compliance, including community supervision.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So that's the gist of the proposed amendment that you're going to be presenting to your committee Right.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, you just covered some of my questions. As I was listening to your committee conversations about this amendment. One of the things and I am perfectly fine waiting until we have language in front of us. But one of the things that was changed was the direction of the definition of a facility in itself, remove some therapeutic language. Correct.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Yeah. I checked that as well with health care, where that came from. The thing is that they're not gonna be able to license the Department of Corrections for this. So for For the interim period. It stays in there again for the forensic facility. This is a forensic and competency restoration program that's going to occur in the interim. And so there it's got the clinical data or clinical language, but not the licensing report.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: And then let me just articulate the concern I've had all along, like, from the start of Senate version of the bill, and then maybe just get a reaction slash response. And maybe my concerns I worry that we're preaching back toward those concerns, and maybe you can allay those concerns. I worry that we are setting a potential road map here to operationalize competency restoration solely within a correction facility, within a correctional infrastructure. I'm worried I was worried when we created this feasibility plan. Right? Because it's incredibly easy to look at feasibility and come back a year from now saying the feasibility is zero. Right?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And in the

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: meantime, we've already then embedded the Department of Corrections into the planning, into the into significant consult consultation, into significant security framework surrounding this system. And I worry that we're creating a transitional model that then gives very little practical or political incentive for the administration to transition beyond that correctional infrastructure. That's what I worry about. Once competency restoration becomes operationalized within the Department of Corrections, future administrations even would be able to say that the system is already functioning just fine, already staffed, we've got it housed, and therefore, a truly independent forensic facility is just no longer really feasible or necessary. That's what I worry about. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Yeah. So those are legitimate words. I mean, and I two things. I balance that against, all right, well, if we don't do this, where are we left? And we're left with these individuals who are really languishing and not getting the services they need now. So that's kind of one thing. And it's like, in my mind, a trade off. And the second is to keep on with the legislature in our limited, I believe, oversight role, we do have control over budgeting and we can influence that, is that we need to pay attention and be working on this. And we do have a sunset, you know, that that's in place. So so those are the things, but I'm not going to downplay what your concerns are, because I have those concerns as well, and others do. And they're legitimate concerns. But, again, it's I balance that against the terrible situation that we have right now. The status quo can't stay. And I'm willing to take the chance and continue to watch over this if the people of South Burlington will have you back next May, to make sure that we're making that progress. And that's the best I can offer. I can't offer you any assurance beyond that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I know we've got a couple of questions, but I just want some clarity. So our language creates a feasibility plan that would be reported back to the general assembly from January. And it included the competency restoration for those folks that are currently prescribed. So your proposal is that would be done, but it would be through the rulemaking process. And those rules, it would be emergency rules. And when would those rules be put in place? Is it end of this year?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yes. They

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: are supposed to be in place by December 31. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: then the program, competency program under your amendment, we think it started in the facilities come January next year, '27?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Presumably, yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Because they couldn't get started before then. In our language, they couldn't get started before then either. They'd have to wait. How long did the emergency rules stay in effect? Is there a sunset on that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: So that was a conversation that I've had with Eric on whether to belt and suspenders and have it in the rule itself saying that it expires 01/01/2029, or if it's actually sufficient to just have the sunset. But I think he's going with the former of the rules will be repealed or will last on

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: the new rules coming to quits.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Yeah, presumably new rules will be ready by then, if not earlier.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Right. In the definition for forensic facilities, the agency of human services is gonna promulgate rules for that. And that section for the forensic facility becomes effective January first, twenty eighth.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I mean, that's a different timeline for rulemaking.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Right. But once those rules kick in and the forensic facility kicks in, the emergency rules will go away.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: At this point, it's going away 07/01/2020.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: James and Monk.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Oh, mine's quick. I have the same concerns both of you just offered for long term. But as Martin said, we had this conversation here last week. I had very significant concerns about the gap in between times. I'm glad that you guys are doing this. I don't want see the language before I go gung ho, but I think it's a good midterm that we can't let this gap go without being addressed, leaving people languishing, as you said, or just not having any of these services available or having a statutory ability to keep people that are, for example, incompetent. I don't have to submit it to the covered DACA.

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

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, just a couple of questions. Would this amendment still include a sunset provision before the actual establishment of the forensic facility? Like we have an Ardron up there?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: It would sunset in Well, the current idea is sunset in 07/01/2029.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: We'd keep that in there? I mean Yeah, yeah. And do you see like So we're all talking about people languishing in there. I think the one And we didn't address it, talking about a case in judiciary. But there's a lot of people languishing who are incompetent to stand trial right now beyond those who are sentenced for life sentences for the most heinous crimes. Would the interim plan look at maybe expanding that to people who also could be very dangerous and competent to stand trial, accused of serious crimes, but not ones that reach that threshold? I mean, like we're talking about people languishing. There's a lot of people languishing it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: You're talking beyond

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: the population So for the life sentence,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I agree with that concept. For whatever reason, when we were talking about for this facility, we would lose human services support. They're fine at this stage for that high level. So policy I agree with the bigger in this building politics that that's why I haven't pursued that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Conor, I presented that to the three or four chairs, I came out a few inches short.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: would say it until the end. You're right. It is not necessarily addressing even the most dangerous people, right? Because I think the clinical diagnosis dictates their potential for dangerousness in the community more than a judge or an accusation. So that's the problem I have with the bill overall, I think. Fair enough. I appreciate it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So one thing we had in our amendment, this amendment would amend, part of our amendment, the feasibility plan, is we had the interim status development or updates to joint justice oversight. I'm wondering, in your amendment, because we're dealing with again, they're going through emergency rules. But I'm wondering if in your amendment you could add that they need to give status updates in that development of the interim competency restoration program to joint justice because our amendment did include that interim piece that we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: updated. I'm looking at that right now.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: It's on page 20. Well, is it our bill? Is it our amendment or is it your amendment?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: No, would still be there for that check-in if we wanted to.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: But it's not, you're taking away the competency restoration program B. The updates they would give us would not include the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Oh, I see. So the updates for August and November meetings joint justices provide an interim status update on the development of the feasibility plan required pursuant to subsection a of the section. So it's the whole feasibility plan.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah. But you're taking out the interim part.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: That that's true. We would

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So I'm wondering if for the interim part, they also need to come over joint justice. Because they're losing it. By taking that part out of our amendment, they don't have to report on that to joint justice.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: So I would suggest an amendment to subdivision b, subsection b on page 27, rather than yeah. As part of the amendment.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: You're taking this out.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: No. No. No.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I I mean, in the report in the report back, making it clear that they're also to report back.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: The interim. Right. That would be in your amendment that you would need to add that. Yes. Yeah. So the monitoring piece in the community, where are folks on that one? Because that's a little bit in reverse of what we have done in the report back. So the report back from the feasibility would be when the forensic facility is up and running, what is the plan for monitoring folks in the community where the lead is the department in which the person has this under the custody of, not DOC. It's in collaboration with DOC. What your amendment does for the interim is flip that. And if you've spoken to DOC about this and how that might impact their P and P offices, because there is an impact.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I have not. I would have to check with Tom Burritt. Or it's also he's worked with the administration on this issue. So I'm assuming that okayed this, but we will double check.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So who would set the conditions to those monitoring in the community?

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: That's the court.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: No, the court is setting the conditions.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: The court would set the conditions. So DOC has administrative procedures when they monitor folks in the community. And I don't know how that would play in as well because that's beyond the conditions that the court would set.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: So we can make sure that in their interim rule making, they're aggressive.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Well, let me just add to that. So we're talking about people who are found being competent to stand trial but not a danger. They're being released. Does that feel like

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: her? Say it again.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I'm sorry. We're talking about people who have been found not competent but also not a danger. And not restorable. And not restorable. And we heard that oftentimes, I think that's fair, the reasons they're found not a danger is because they have a plan that includes medication, a plan that includes therapy, whatever, right? That as long as they're following that plan, they're not going to be a danger. I don't have confidence that our DOC staff are trained to follow-up in the community concerning those concerns. If it's somebody who has suddenly stopped taking their medication, that to me feels like a different reason to be concerned about danger to self or others than a violation of conditions or whatever. I know you all talked this morning about training required for DOC staff who are now being placed in this position. And I know what the commissioner has said about the training that has already occurred, whether that's at the academy or whatever. I'm not convinced that DOC staff are well trained for this population of individuals. Would much rather this is why I have problems with flipping that community monitoring arrangement to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: of edge away from the agency? So the language would be one well, the language right now is supervision by the Department of Corrections in collaboration with the Commissioner of Mental Health, Department of Disabilities Agency, and living for the Department of Health. That, it's not just Department of Corrections.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I know, but it wasn't just the agency before.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: It was in collaboration with DOC before.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So can I interject here? I'm thinking don't work with the local PMP office in Springfield on supervision of folks, particularly when there's mental issues, and particularly making sure that they are participating in the program. You're dealing with HIPAA. And a lot of times the PMP have no information because HIPAA kicks in. And we have, in our local area, we spent a lot of time, probably about six months working up an agreement between our PNP office and our local designated agencies. So at least the local mental health agencies could share some preliminary information with PNP that yes, this person is complying with the order to be in therapy or whatever. Because prior to that, PMP never could get that information because it's HIPAA. So is that gonna play in here? Because particularly if they're on medications or they need medic mental health treatment. PMP officers won't have access to that because it's HIPAA. It's a cons I mean, I'm just thinking what happened to us in Springfield. Last year, it took six months to work through communications between that because PMP was having a really hard time. How do we know that this person has completed the court order for treatment for therapy because the person said they did?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: So isn't that I mean, so in this scenario, doesn't the Department of Mental Health have that information?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: They're saying HIPAA, they don't they can't release it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: But if they're working in collaboration with Department of Corrections, are we not giving them the ability? And so

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I I don't know. I mean, that's I'm going by what I I don't know what that means, if HIPAA would kick in or not. So how about this?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I don't want to throw a curve, but No, no, no. So there may be I mean, so this, again, I would this is not my amendment right now, so I would have to double check with the sponsor. Like what? Why can we say, I mean, idea is like this is joint supervision, and maybe we're not saying that clearly enough. Maybe it's supervision by the Department of Corrections, not in collaboration with, but and the Department of Mental Health and those other departments. And the concept, as I've been hearing it, is that this is like joint supervision, joint, well, can't really call it joint custody, because that's not necessarily what it is. Could be with, It's

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: not really that, but

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I just put that on the table, because that was a real issue with our PMP folks. We can't get this information, so we're basing it on the person that we're supervising. And unless they sign a release of information, but sometimes they say, Oh yeah, I didn't. Have no PMP officers have no access except based on what the person that they're supervising. Oh yeah, can believe that. And if they didn't, that's a violation of conditions. But your PEP officers are, they don't And the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: conditions are primarily focused on having prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care for treatment, housing and housing as well. So those are like specifically what we're talking about is the kind of conditions. And obviously, there has to be a way to supervise that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: The CDC may not have access.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: And we need to I would suggest that we expand exactly what we need in the rulemaking so they have that figured out. Yeah, no, no, think that's No, I appreciate that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: It was a real issue, Inspector. James?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So I guess we're not gonna answer this question today, because that's legitimate. But, so wouldn't a court just issue a special order that the person sentenced, whatever you wanna call it, for net prior purposes, asked to share this information with BAP? Cause I know that legally they can.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: They would be up to sign a release of information form. Some folks don't want to do it. Cause they would have to sign a release of information form with every place that they're getting treatment, every single place. And it's really hard sometimes because the person say, I already signed on. Why do I need to sign another one? That's what P and P was running into.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So more of a compliance issue than the legality issue because they legally can make it do it. It's just whether or not they're complying.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Well, they're not confident to stand trial.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Right, I get it. But

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I'm just flagging that that could be a real issue.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: DOC isn't getting the necessary we're gonna have I mean, they're gonna have to check-in to make sure the person is actually going to treatment or taking their meds. I just don't know how PMP folks can really do that. Because most folks come into the office and sometimes they do go out to their homes, but a lot of times, or they do phone calling, it depends what level of supervision DOC feels the person needs. But think about the folks who were here for pretrial supervision, What we went through with what was needed for supervision. You could do electronic monitoring, you could do phone calls, you could do actual visits, but it's gonna be based on that risk assessment and who's doing the risk assessment. Is it DOC or is it Department of Health or mental health? Mean, there's layers to the monitoring out in the community that we have embedded in committee this session. We did with pretrial supervision. There's many layers to it and it's really complicated.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Right. So I'm going to make sure in this rule making component that this is spelled out more. That they have to come up with how they're gonna deal with the compliance. Because it's clear that the conditions include compliance with language that the order as an explicit condition of supervision that the person comply with the prescribed regimen of medical psychiatric or psychological care or treatment. So we're making that that's really what the conditions are all about. So we need to put something in as far as how one can actually implement and access

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: HIPAA protected Yep. Could that also be another check-in with joint justice or not? Because we have in the feasibility plan where it's the mental health and Dale, those departments are the lead departments to do the monitoring in the community in collaboration with DOC. We have a report, they have to check-in with joint justice on that piece. Should they also check-in

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: with Yeah, mean, think that would be generally on the rulemaking. Was part of the rulemaking.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I know we've had long days, folks. So you left the language for tomorrow morning. Corporate. Martin's gonna work some more with Eric.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Yeah, I'm gonna go

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: over and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: see if he's still here. Thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Anything else for Martin before tomorrow morning, folks? Is there a general feel of I know we haven't seen the language, but it's the concept. And Martin came in and laid the groundwork. What is the general feel of the committee? Can you support this amendment or not?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: I'm generally good. Yes. Yes.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I'm gonna think about it.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, need one more time.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Other folks, Brian? Well?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: Mean, it's a mess. Just wanted to go through it. Well, of course, you've got to understand the language and see the language first. Thank you for your time. I

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: hope it helped.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Thank you for your work, Martin.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So tomorrow here at thirty, make it through.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: Can you explain, please, what happened today at thirty tomorrow morning here?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Language for this.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: So we get whatever he's worked up this afternoon evening.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: We're going to have to take a position on it because it's amending part of our member.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: And we will, in this committee, be taking a position on that language as they and that committee are taking a position on this language.

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

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: that as these two? That's it, these two? Judiciary and corrections?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah. I'm not sure if health care is I mean, human services is going to get involved. Because they're amending our proportion. And I know that they included some of health care's amendments in that amendment that they're going to be presenting to us.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Is there any chance we're going see that language before tomorrow morning? Like later tonight.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: Well, if

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: he sends it to me Why

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: is he going

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: to keep you updated?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: He sends it

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: You don't think it will. That's why I asked.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: If he sends it to me, which I asked him if he could send it to me before 08:30 tomorrow, I will send it out to the committee. It puts us in a tough position, folks. And I was clear when I met with them, you cannot have the forensic listed as a facility in DOC. It's true on that. It's one of the first languages that was kind of put there, looked like the DOC was going to be the forensic facility in the interim. I know I'm French. Can't help it. I'm there. I see it worked. I know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; South Burlington)]: You didn't have to.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: You didn't have to. I talked with my

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: hands. It's French.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So at least they were clear within any forensic facility, DOC language, because that's sort of where it was headed. I was like, uh-huh.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: So just so don't have to ask you tomorrow morning. This is not a question for Martin, but it came off of James's comment about enforceability, think, or compliance, I think you were talking about. So it seems the court can make as a condition of release taking your meds, some sort of Is the release of that information also something that they can force? I mean, goes back to your question about HIPAA and sort of the intersection of those two.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I know for a fact they can't, but I think Alice's legitimate concern is how can the compliance

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I do monitor that. But

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: the court can't put it as conditions. Is what happens like everything else when they don't comply, then you're back to a crap.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: But you could force compliance to take your meds, would require your doctor or whoever the medical professional is to know that without it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Is that medical doctor going to share that information with people?

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: This is the intersection that I'm talking about. Yeah.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I don't

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: know. I mean, this is the layers that you get into when you have DOC monitoring folks of this situation in the community.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I think what I'm going have a problem with this is DOC is going to say, yes, we can do anything you give us. Right? They have. They said they could do this already. And I I can't unhear the voices I've heard of the POs that I know personally, from having represented them from ten years, who say, verbatim, this is a different sport than what we do right now. We are not qualified to do this. We don't have the capacity to do this. And it's hard for me to stank up that against anything the administration says and say, this is a good idea going forward. Because at the end of the day, those are the people who are gonna do the work, and they don't want to, and they don't think they can.

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: And they're understaffed.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: And they're understaffed.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: It's a tough one, folks. So maybe spend some time thinking, I know some folks automatically agree with this and do it, but we also have to work. We are responsible for DOC policy. We are responsible for our PMP officers. And is there anything that folks can think of overnight to help them in this monitoring out community? Is there anything we can do? Is there further check backs? I'm open to see. I don't know. I just don't know. I mean, they're gonna be going through rulemaking, emergency rules. I have a better idea of January. Nothing comes into effect until January of next year. Just be thinking about this tonight for the PNP folks out there.

[Unidentified Member/Staff]: To your point, Conor, there is going be this rulemaking. Suppose that there were training that were part of this rulemaking. You're rejecting the notion that the training could work or that it would happen or all of the above?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: And we need training all over at DOC, but if you don't have enough people, you're not gonna fill the shifts and you're not gonna have appropriate training to really delve down deep into this. But I think the specific kind of training is very tailored to a more traditional human services and corrections, which is enforcement monitoring. Don't know, again, a different sport than what we do now. It just sticks with me.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's a

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: very different world for PNP. Just think of maybe some parameters we could put in around this or something to help our folks overnight. Hey, Shirley. On a good note, our cheerful rest in the conference call proudly, even though we were all smacking our heads against the table, but she did an excellent job in us doing navigating the system. We got quite a bit. We've made it, but it's because of the work that we as a committee did. We had solid ground to stand on it. So let's go off of YouTube and we're back

[Unidentified Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: at