Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, holidays. Yes. You.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions. It is Friday, May 22, and we are on s one ninety three. We have with us ledge counsel and also also the chair of the house judiciary committee to go over a proposed amendment that the house judiciary committee is working on s one ninety three that also impacts some of the pieces of the work that we did in our committee on section five and section seven. And if someone, again, could move those tulips so I could see identify yourself for the record and walk us through the proposed amendment.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Happy to. Good morning, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council. And as the chair said, here to, talk with the committee about our proposed amendment to s one ninety three, the, forensic facility bill, which I'm sure the committee has been very familiar with over the last few weeks, if not months by now. Just for a moment before we look at the language, to let the committee know the structure of this proposed amendment and what the idea is, is that you remember that a lot of the language that came out of this committee, for example, in different places in the bill, put some guardrails on the involvement of the Department of Corrections with the forensic facility. Some specifics about, for example, providing security at the admitting area and around the outside perimeter and that sort of thing was what this committee had been working on that language. Now that language will still be in the bill. It's still in the sections of the underlying bill s one ninety three, but it won't become effective until 07/01/2029. And in the meantime
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It's been delayed because the bill right now is 07/01/2028, for the forensic Yeah.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's been
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Send it out one more.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One more year. Exactly. And during that interim time, that's when and you remember this issue had also been at least addressed a little bit and discussed in this committee, which is, well, what happens in the interim? Right? Because there's still folks who would need these services. So what happens until the time that the forensic facility comes online? And so what the proposed amendment does is it puts in something that had been in previous versions of the bill, which is requirement look, now is emergency rulemaking. So it's gonna require emergency rulemaking by the agency of human services to put this interim forensic program and competency restoration program in place. And during that interim period, which is 07/01/2029, what's that, like, three years roughly from now?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That's what I wanna well, right now, when we were doing the interim, it was basically from the time from July 1 when the law when it got signed. This
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: year.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: The interim that we were looking at was from July of this year to 01/01/2028, because that's when the forensic facility was gonna be starting to be established. It might go a little bit beyond January '28. So what the amendment does, it extends that interim period by one year to 01/01/2029.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Actually, July 1, year and a half.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It's July 1.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That is. I read it right here. July 1, because it extends it out a year and a half from what we had. And then the emergency rules will occur from this summer and they need to be in place by December of this year,
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: which
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: then means that the interim restoration competency program will take effect January 1, suppose, of twenty seventh. Mhmm. And will be in place until July 1.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. Yep.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So it extends the interim period of time by a good year, from what Yep. The bill
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And puts these emergency rules in place so that standards and guidelines for this interim program get put in place, that they would last. And in fact, those emergency rules themselves sunset 07/01/2029, Because it's at that time, oops, sorry, on 07/01/2029, that the language and provisions that this committee worked on, in other words, I mentioned at the very beginning, the limitations on DOC involved, those sections, as I say, those remain in the underlying S-one 193, but they spring into effect on 07/01/2029, at the same time that the rules go away. Because the presumption is, again, we'll see what happens in reality. But the presumption is that by that time, facility's up and running. You don't need the emergency rules anymore. The statutes that limit DOC involvement can all go into effect. Although it might remind the chair of something, it certainly reminded me of something. Reminded me of Raise the Age. It's a similar kind of concept.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So for the rules, we've got the emergency rules for the interim.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: then the forensic facility would come July 1 is when the work would be to establish the secure facility. But that's when rulemaking for that secure facility would then start, because that's in the definition of forensic facility. There's no rulemaking that will occur.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not for that, you mean for the permanent facility?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: For the permanent. Because what is in the bill in section five, the definition of forensic facility, the Secretary of Human Service shall adopt rules pursuant to blah, blah, blah, to implement this section. So that would start happening in July 1?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Although the presumption was that they would have had these emergency rules for quite a period of time. That, in other words, they wouldn't necessarily be starting from scratch.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: The emergency rules only deal with the interim, which is in the interim, and services being provided, because those emergency rules in the interim would also cover DOC's monitoring of folks in the community. Mhmm. So those rules sunset 07/01/2029. Right. And then the new rules for the facility and the whole operation again starts 07/01/2029? Because that section is effective 07/01/2029. Right.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that does a- So there'll be a gap there. Well, there'll be a gap before the rules would be, say, reviewed and finalized by ELCA. I think it permits the rules, like presumably they can be working on the rules before 07/01/2029, because they know that it's coming up. But you're right, statutory language requiring their development wouldn't go into effect until then.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I read this very quickly. Is there anything right now in the interim period that requires regular check backs about how the, what do I want to call them, the eventual facility is being contemplated? Meaning, are we requiring the administration to give us regular updates I'm talking like every six months, not once a year during this interim period on the development of the forensic facility as contemplated in the feasible?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is at the outset. That would be on page Well, the amendment is, it leaves the underlying section in place. But if you look at the amendment page two, it's the third instance of amendment. That's referring to the updates that come back to justice oversight.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: But
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you may think about whether or not you want to
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Here's my worry. Again, I read this very quickly. I'm probably going to need some time before I can make a decision on whether or not I can support it. And same worry I articulated yesterday to you, there is nothing in here. Once we get this interim period going and I'm fine with the interim period, I know we have to have something in place right now. There is nothing in here that then holds the administration's feet to the fire of working on legitimate, clinically driven forensic facility. And the interim period conveniently ends at the end of this administration. So it would be really easy for this administration to drag their feet on that development of a sincere and honest forensic facility and just hand it off to the administration. Very easy. I would I would like to see regular conversations in these committees about the development of a legitimate forensic facility while this interim is working.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, Mark Malone, representative from South Burlington, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. So I agree that my concept of this was we need to see what this feasibility plan comes back with, and presumably January 15 or soon thereafter, these committees, nor is it ours, are going to have the folks in to explain what this is and can establish from there presumably when this rule may be because there's going to have to be additional rule date afterwards and establishing the checkbox back period when we see that because we may see the feasibility plan and say this is not it. That's my worry.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We have to face this interim plan and that then gives the administration the ability to say that's good enough. But I think,
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I mean I'm not opposed to putting some sort of report back in this, but I was thinking that see the feasibility plan first, which would be like the
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: third week of January.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: It's coming January, right? Yeah. Coming January. I
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: mean, we would have and I think that's part of our thinking, feasibility plan. Get it? You get till the end of the year, the check ins with Joint Justice Committee, so that you've got the respective chairs of the committees, House and Senate, that are working on this issue on joint justice. So in the off session, you can see what direction that feasibility plan is going, And joint justice can continually give feedback. No. That's not where the legislator legislative intent was. Then comes January, new session. You continue that work based on what the feasibility plan proposes. The question then becomes, what occurs after next session finishes up? What occurs during the summer of twenty seven? And do we want to address that now? Or do we address that next session when we have a little bit more information in terms of what the feasibility plan is
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for that?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: That was my thinking. Discussing feasibility.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: James?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I was
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: just gonna say I agree with Martin's rationale, but you take a feasibility study when it comes back, our plan, when it comes back in January, go in one direction or the other based on what we find, we'll have that opportunity. Now if it was, that wasn't there and we're just skipping all the way to '29, I would definitely feel differently. But coming back at '27 and saying, hey, this is what our plan is, we have plenty of time during a post session to make those pivots.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Does that make sense for you? Or would it be
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It makes sense. I'm not taking the same leap of faith that others are right now.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I'm just wondering, would it be helpful? And we've done this a few times with joint justice oversight, that they would make a recommendation to the standing committees. We've done that in the past, where on the feasibility plan, on our section seven, page 27 of our bill, or of the bill, On August September August and November of this year, the agency needs to present where they are in the peaceability plan to joint justice. Also, the amendment before us is also stating that they also need to report on the emergency rulemaking where they are. If we added language that the committee, Joint Justice Committee, would make a recommendation to the standing committees on how we move forward. Would that help at all? Or be silent. Other folks, do you see what I'm saying?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I see what you're saying. I don't know that it does anything that isn't I think there's a presumption already and the two of you, to be in that room and come back to the non suspect. And I don't think we need that in language. I'm just trying to get something in here now that prevents the administration from dragging their feet.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Prevents the administration from what?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Dragging their feet.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Dragging their feet.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Until '29. That's just in my head. We don't have to figure this out. I mean,
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: that's not imperative of the members who are sitting around this table next year and House judiciary next year to their feet to the fire. That's what we're going.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So that's thank you for that. Because my job is right now. I'm no guarantees that I'm in this room a year from now or six months from now. My job is right now, and how lock tight can I make this bill to ensure that we're moving in a direction further than and substantially different than the interim plan that has these treatments happening in facilities that are not therapeutic, that are not clinically good? So right now, what can I get into this bill to make sure that that happens, rather than that leap of faith that you're asking me to think that I don't know that I can do? Yeah. I don't know if there's an answer to that. There's not a
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: think that the best answer is that this plan is coming back to us. It has to be debt delivered to us so it will be in front of us to see where they're trying to have.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And that's why the forensic facility language in terms of when it becomes effective is not January first, twenty seventh. It's extended out to give time for two legislative sessions to weigh in on it. So that's what you really have, is two legislative sessions to weigh in on. Shawn?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Forgive me. I guess I see where, Troy, where you're trying to do, but are you trying to legislate too ahead of time in a way that you're not supposed to be able to do that? I don't think I am. No.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Need to find a future.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Is that is that are we getting like, is that a problem? Not not that we're just asking for report backs, but I hear Martin's point that what are they gonna report before they have the And I think we're trying
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: to bind the administration. Which is Which is a constant struggle of dealing
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: with executive branch. Okay, I'm sorry. Thanks for making that distinction, Martin. Is it oversight, is it binding? I think it's oversight.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Let's continue on the government and maybe over on some other things.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay, Troy, before we go
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: on, I was going ask, are there any time constraints? I know some of us have a 09:45 with Ledge Council like the update. Oh,
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's that word around the same. It depends where we when we walk down the hall together. Okay.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: That
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: committee is waiting for this committee.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Alright. Alright.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We do have a signing at quarter of ten.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Very good.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Okay. Let's keep going.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Well, we were still talking big picture, which I think is good, because that sort of makes the rest of the discussion a little bit quicker because you sort of have all these big picture principles in the backs of our minds. So so let's then turn to the language of the amendment itself. And that is so is everybody looking at version 3.1? Yes. Alright. And from representative Burditt, et al. You'll see the legislative intent language. And, the only, change here from what had come out of this committee is that it adds the date on lines ten and eleven. You see that the intent of general assembly shall establish this facility by 07/01/2029. Because remember, that's the new, effective date, new proposed effective date of the permanent facility. You still have the language in here, that second sentence that I think, if I recall correctly, came out of this committee substantially, that sentence about DOC's limited role in this thing. But, again, this is with respect to the permanent plant facility, not the interim, because that's the distinction between the two effective dates. All right, second piece really starts Can
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I just articulate an appreciation, because I know that that second sentence was struck as of yesterday? Right?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Second sentence.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So I appreciate that coming back. Thank you. Oh, which which Lines 13 through 17.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Yeah. Inverted's original amendment was struck. Yeah.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Thank you. Just a little of gratitude. I'm happy to. We're happy
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to pause anytime, so please interrupt with any questions. The second instance of amendment has to do with the feasibility plan, And, again, much of which came out of this committee originally. And the change it makes here is that the of the bill came out of the committee, the feasibility plan, again, had some and this this in per this particular part of this feasibility plan has to do with the interim status, the interim program. You'll see that on lines 18 Well, I guess, two and three at page two. Because this is about while the development of the forensic facility is pending. And in that situation, remember, this is gonna be addressed by rule. Interim idea is addressed by rule. But you wanted to keep in here, if I understood correctly, some language that had been in your proposal, which is that, well, while this is pending, the issue would be addressed of placement in an out of state residence where clinically appropriate programming can be provided. So that language was in your language as it came out with those 12, right? Yeah, exactly. But the language that was, again, putting those guardrails up around DOC, that is struck here because this has to do with the interim program only. And it's during that interim period when the idea is to permit DOC some extra level of involvement, but that goes away in 2029. All right. So that's the second instance of amendment. Now moving on to the third instance of amendment, which is also related to the feasibility plan. And this is, I think, the chair, you mentioned this earlier already, which is the idea that the rules have to or sorry. The feasibility plan has to address not only the implementation of the interim program itself, but also on the emergency roommate. So you wanna hear back from the administration Justice Oversight on this emergency rulemaking that's supposed to be going on. So that makes that clear there. All right, so now we're moving on to the fourth instance of amendment. And this is one of those situations where this version of the language, you'll see, for example, if you look at Where are you at right now? I'm starting at the fourth instance of amendment, which starts on page two, Yes. Line
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Okay. Thank you.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Gotcha. I gotcha. Yeah. And so this takes this section. This section is not new at all. It's just And I'll point out where the differences are though. But this is the section that basically involves the court procedure. It's for someone who's been found not competent to stand trial and then is placed in the forensic Pacific. But if you look at Subdivision 5 A, which is on page six Oh, sorry. Page yeah. No. That's right. Page six. Of seven one? Yeah. No. Page six of version three point Oh, and then the of the amendment three point o. No. That's okay. Page six, everyone with me there? Okay. So if you look at page six, line so it kinda goes over well, bottom of page six, line 21 is the last line. It's gonna continue on to the next page. This is the situation where the person has been found that they're not restorable, they're not dangerous, and they have to be released on supervision. That's what is required. They have to be released on supervision. That doesn't change. That part stays the same. But the question is, who supervises? Now remember, as it came out of this committee, and in the version 7.1, actually, the Department of Corrections was not listed there. The new language you see take a look at the bottom of page yeah. Bottom of page six, line 21. It's supervision, and then it says by the Department of Corrections in collaboration with turn over to the top of the next page, in collaboration with Commissioner Mental Health, Dale, etcetera. So the the added languages, VOC in collaboration with. So as it came out of here, the only departments involved in the supervision were DMH, Dale, etcetera. This has, hey, DOC does it in collaboration. Didn't we have in consultation with DOC? Didn't have DOC at all. Actually, the language out here didn't mention DOC at all, the final language.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It's in the feasibility plan that they had developed in consultation with DOC. It would be those residents that were discharged, community monitoring plan.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Wow. So, yeah, developed
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Each department with custody of individuals in the forensic facility developed in consultation with DOC. So here we're putting DOC as the lead.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And they don't have custody.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: They don't have custody. These folks are detainees.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I think that those these folks have pending criminal charges against them, and they could be in custody.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: They're but they're not a detainee, when they're released from DOC, they're not in custody of DOC. When a detainee is released right now Right. They haven't been sentenced. They go to court. They've been held. They go to court. That sentence could be resolved. They could be let go.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But in this
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: But DOC is not overseeing them. So how is that different from someone whose competency cannot be restored, they can't go to trial, and then they're released.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the distinction here is that this and I've mentioned this in the other committee as well, that in some sense, the custody isn't the issue. It's the supervision. These people are being released custody wasn't used in the prior version either, when it was Dale, DMH, etcetera. It was just supervision. When they're being released, they're under supervision. And it's those supervisory
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: No, no, no, no, no. In the feasibility plan on the 7.1 draft pad, page 26. A resident discharged in community monitoring plan for each department with custody of individuals in the forensic facility. Developed in consultation with DOC. That is language we put in in the feasibility plan to come back to us and figure out how you were gonna monitor these folks in the community. It was not driven by DOC. It was driven by the department that has custody over the individual.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. That's the feasibility plan for the permanent facility. This is only the this is not permanent.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I I know. It's in the interim. Right. But you're putting DOC in the lead to monitor these folks in the community that they have no custody over. You're putting them in the lead. So this is a point of contention, I think, with the members of this committee. And how much information does DOC have in terms of the actual treatment that the court has set that set those conditions for that person? How much control does DOC have over that? Or is it the departments like mental health and Dale that have control over that? Because DOC doesn't have information in terms of what their risk status is, who's doing the risk evaluation? Because when PMP supervises folks in the community, there's a risk evaluation that is done so DOC knows what level of supervision they need to do. So how is that put in place here in the interim?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's addressed at least if you're talking about information sharing, that particular piece of it is in the rulemaking. If you look in the emergency rulemaking, a newer version would be toward the very end.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yep.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So if you look at page 24, lines four to six, subdivision three. So the emergency rulemaking has to address that, the manner in which DOC would cooperate with and obtain necessary information from other departments about persons released under supervision from the forensic program. So again, that rule comes into effect Well, the emergency rule is in effect by December 31 year. And then based on that language, they have to address the issue that you just mentioned.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So who does the risk assessment for these folks so that DOC knows what level of supervision?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: It's in the section two, and it's done by, overseen by the AHS medical director.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Because that's an important piece, because DOC needs to know what that risk level is to determine what type of supervision. Is it a daily check-in? Is it a phone call? Is it actually visiting the resident? Is it putting on an electronic monitor bracelet? Those right now, that's how supervision in DOC's world and the community right now operates.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Right. So you'll see on page five is where it talks about the forensic risk assessment for individual coverage. If you looked at for determining whether and how to release the person under what works.
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And I just need to
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: make one other comment real quickly, as far as custody is concerned, in my discussions with Dale, the only people that they take custody of are intellectual developments, intellectual disabilities. They don't take actual custody of people with Alzheimer's, traumatic brain injury, all those. So it's like having them supervise, even though they don't officially have custody of those particular individuals. It's not in their statutes.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And what about the Department of Mental Health? Do you know?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: They generally take custody if they're hospitalized. When it's an old age, don't think that's actually considered custody. And they barely monitor, and that's one of the reasons as I've expressed here, that DOC actually does know how to supervise and monitor, and we don't have a lot of faith that that's the case with DMH. But at least not yet, hopefully might not that's the same concern I have
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: about DOC supervising this population, that have the capacity and the training. Is a different type of person being supervised than somebody released on criminal charges. There's an added level of monitoring that needs to happen that I am not convinced is present in our P and P staff or the training of the staff.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: And that's why it's in consultation with the ADAL and like. I think we've put them out
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: in consultation with the Department of Corrections. Supervision, Shelby?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah. The language is DOC needs to reach out to those folks. That's why the language is Our version and the plan was flipped. They weren't The DOC wasn't in the driver's seat.
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: But for the long term, it's still that way. This is just the interim.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We know that.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It's still a problem for
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: us. I
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: can get that. I just want to reinforce that it's not forever. I think a lot of us would disagree for the post.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So I don't mean to be antagonistic. Why would you disagree if it were forever, but not for the next three years?
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I think there's a partial, if you will, and just have very loosely system in place that they're trying to maybe formalize. And this amendment helps get everybody who needs to sign on to sign on enough numbers to actually get it through to the finish line.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I get that. That's I'm worried about the foothold we're creating.
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah, and I would have a lot bigger concern if we didn't have a opportunity next year, which do whoever we is, but I I am not willing to let it be yet another year of not having this move forward because I want perfect. And I my version, as we've already talked about, is much stricter than even what we've talked about, but we're not gonna get it. I would rather have something that we can do as long as the pieces are there that say, hey, this is not long term. You will be doing X, Y, and Z long term. That's because I'm not trying to convince anybody else of that. I wanted to pass through the finish line and get a signature, so we have something that's better than what we have. So
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I guess the answer to you, Troy, on that is that my concern for this internal period, as it will be going forward as well, is the public safety side of this. And DOC is more in line for being able to provide that. If we're going to be having the system where somebody who's been charged with a life offense, who we're gonna have in the community under this being supervised, public safety, I think, for the community to accept this needs to be front and center. But we do need to understand that it's just as critical and from people we talk to at the end, that there has to be the supervision in conjunction with the providers like DMH to make sure that people are taking their medications and all those things. And if there's more that we
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: need to do on the rule making to make sure that we have that right, we
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: do have that language that we put in there, given your suggestions yesterday. So that's the perspective that that's coming from.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Can I ask one more question on this contract? Eric, we had had deliberate language that the folks making these evaluations are separate from anybody contracted by DOC, which is WellPath right now? Is that separation still in place?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It's the agency's medical director, right?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah, but what's keeping them from just contracting with WellPath? That's my question. I don't want the same people who are charged with providing care to incarcerated folks making the decision about, should these folks stay incarcerated or under the superdictment appeals. I want there to be
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a separate Yeah, there was
[Rep. Conor Casey, Member (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: an explicit line there that I don't know still here.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: The contract, not currently contracted by the court.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I think that that is a line that, for the interim piece is removed by the verdict amendment, I believe. And I think that was that's the piece where the part that's kept in is the out of state placement. Right? So it's in the second instance of amendment, but it takes out the
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So I'm looking on 7.1. I'm I'm looking on page 27 top of the Right. Tax
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's number 12. Right? That was
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: 12 b. Yes. 12 b. Exactly.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yes, in answer to your question, that part is not in the amendment, and therefore, would not be in the interim
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: plan to get that back in there.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That was a big point of contrition. We wanted to make sure that any programming that happened within the facility was not done by DOC. We wanted to make sure it was clinical programming that was provided outside of the DOC contract with Well Pay. That was really important in this committee and that would be a deal breaker that I'm going just not go back in with the clinical that the
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So the contract with the contract with the scenario is that
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: it is in DOC in the interim. It's in Springfield.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And our language was that as well. And we said competency restoration program within a Vermont correctional facility. That was our plan for the interim restoration program provided by an entity that is not under contract with the Department of Corrections.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So I think that
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: where that would probably fit was in Section 12, the emergency rulemaking,
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: even in that first paragraph of Section eight. I think that that's where that line of motion should get.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just want to strike the second instance of amendment in its entirety? You could do that. If you just wanna put it back in
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Can you see page
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: 12 of section
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It's the section 12, page 23 on
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the That's the instance of amendment that removes
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I think the cuts should be in the emergency rulemaking
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah, you don't want it yeah, want it in the rulemaking.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, just to believe that subsection A of section 12 emergency rulemaking, it seems like it would
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: fit in there.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, but it isn't now.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: It's not now.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Right. It's that language.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you're saying, strike the second instance of amendment, but instead put those two concepts in the emergency room.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: No. I'm not I'm not saying strike. Keep keep the second of the second. Yeah. You don't I still don't
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: need 12 feet, but we need we need we do need that specific
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You need the concept of twelve eighty in their in their in the roommate.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Need to make sure is that the program the the rest competency program in the interim, that's being provided to those folks who are in an incarcerated setting, that that program is being provided by an entity that is not under contract with the Department of
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And that will include the determination of somebody becoming non historical, right? That sort of program?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: That's yeah. That's
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: part of thing.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That's why we want that separation. See what we're saying, Gar?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I do. Thank you.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And what you're saying, Martin, is put that in section 12 in the rulemaking. And then joint justice oversight would be hearing about that in the interim. It's really important to have that language in there. James?
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Martin, do you I like that language. We've wandered in here. Do you feel like there's gonna be any contention in your
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I'll raise it over there. Okay. I don't think Okay.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I'll speak for I mean, will explain your version.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Just don't know if this is
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: No, we had a feeling. No big deal.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Mean, we're all in agreement. We need to do something in the interim. We're all in agreement. And we've all been looking at, and I go back to what representative Eric McGuire said. You gotta provide those services. You gotta separate DOC's role of security and the clinical work. And DOC is not equipped and should not be doing the clinical program. You need that separation. And we want to keep that separation in the interim.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: And the community. So I have a question about this.
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So do we also is this already still here? She gave me that. Are we at the the slider that's going to be It's kind of teed it up. Providing is different than the one that's basically doing the test is, right? You know, talk about Troy. That's what we're talking about, making sure those are two different entities.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yes. Okay. Yes. And it sounds like we're going to try and put that in the program.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: In rule making. And rule making, as the emergency rules are being developed, they have to check-in with joint justice. And Troy will be watching joint justice.
[Rep. Conor Casey, Member (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Like a hawk.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: May come down.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: May come down. May even let you speak from the audience. Okay, we've disrupted enough. So, Eric, where are we?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe we're on page six and seven. We just sort of talked about this. This is a discussion that the committee's just been having about the DOC role. And I think where we landed was that we're gonna make clear in their emergency rules that recognizing that for the interim here, it's DOC in collaboration with the departments, and that's page six, line 16, as well as page seven, lines one and two. Also page seven, line seven. Here, it's the supervision of the Commission of Corrections. So all those things are part of the same change, but it's gonna addressed by having the emergency rule make clear that during this interim period, the contracting entity can't be somebody, the service provider isn't someone who's under contract, the language was when it
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: came out of
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the security. So that really covers the only change the only you'll see there's a lot of unchanged language. The the that is because I understood that the preference was, rather than having instances of amendment, just to see, like, one line, three three words take the place of those six words Yeah. To repeat the entire section. So that's why it's all here. There aren't actually any changes that until you get to page 10. All that stuff is exactly the same as it was before. Until you get to page 10, toward the bottom, subsection g starts on line actually, yeah. Can I have the right version? E. Pardon me? Could it be e?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Or Pigs blood. Okay.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's right. Alright. I was looking at the thank you. Top of Pigs blood. That's where subsection G is, and that's where the next couple of changes are. And it has to do Again, it's similar concept, though. And in fact, it's exactly the same as what we just talked about. This is talking about supervision when the person is released, when they're not dangerous. In this case, it's a different population, because in the other case, was in certain cases, it's having to do with dangerousness. But here, when they're German not dangerous under supervision, you'll see that it's the agency of human services medical director is the person who's doing the supervising here. But it's in consultation with these departments. And again, it's the idea that if there are conditions of supervision that, for example, keep going to your appointments with your counselor, make sure your medications are up to date, whatever that may be. I think the concept was that you wanted the supervising person being the medical director, making sure that that's what's going But they're consulting with the appropriate department. The medical director monitors compliance. And then it's the medical director that's the very bottom. Upon request from the agency of Human Services medical director, the court orders return of the person. And then once the court orders return of the person, it might not happen right away, it could be a day or two, or it could be longer, but then once the person does get back to the facility, this is Subdivision 2, medical director notifies the court that the person is back, and that's when court has set the hearing because you've committed the person. And so there has to be a requirement that the state's attorney has to prove by clear and convincing evidence again that they are dangerous and need to stay there. So that's a constitutional requirement.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So we do have a Go ahead, Martin, and then we have a question.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Partly resolving your concern that we actually see really there for this public safety issue I mentioned, but I forgot that we're going to get to this part, that we have the agency of human services, the medical director, making sure that compliance with that medical regime, that medication is part of this.
[Rep. Conor Casey, Member (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Conor? The question that's underlining Bill, not even just the amendment. Is the medical director an existing physician or does this legislation trigger the creation of it in statute? And if so, is there like a corresponding appropriation you need? Or is it just being absorbed with like vacancy savings?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is not being created in this legislation. But my understanding from other witnesses, I don't have any personal direct knowledge of this, is that the position is currently posted.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah. It's currently what? Posted. Yeah. Is a couple of schools that did it, funded.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It was posted before the concept of this Yes. Trump. That's I understand.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Thanks.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Now I'll never find anyone.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Well, that's true.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: These things are available are. But
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: again, just as a reminder for folks, because it's always good to keep this in your back of your mind, if this provision that you're looking at, that they issue, is only in effect for three years. Yep. At the end of that three year period, it goes back to 07/2001, which I'm looking at I happen to be looking at 7.1, page 10, but that's the go back to the language as the committee had seen it before, which is as appropriate for the needs of the person, mental health, health, disabilities, aging, independent living they monitor. So it goes back to that version once the permanent facility is in place in 07/01/2029.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And we're still talking with folks who have a life sentence held without bail, all of those qualifications.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that is in place in both the interim and permanent forensic facility programs. So that brings us to the next section, which you'll see is section 10. Now this, again, we'll be able look at this very quickly. This starts on page 13. This is because we were just talking about the people who have been found not competent to stand trial. Remember, forensic facility is also for people who are NGRI, not guilty by race. But Sandy, that's what this section deals with those folks. But all this does is it makes the exact same changes that you just looked at already with respect to the competency. And that I'll point you to specifically That's a few pages. In subsection F, which I believe is on 17. Maybe it's on Yes, it's
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: on line 11.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So it's the same changes. You'll see it's the agency. It's on lines eleven and twelve. It's the agency of Human Services medical director in consultation with who monitors compliance. That's second sentence, line 15. It's upon request from medical director, the court orders a return. And then line 19, the medical director notifies the court when the person gets back. So same change that you just looked at with respect to the muffin seed population. And that's the only change to that section,
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: section of
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: underlying bill. That brings us over to page 18, which is the forensic facility definitions. And in fact, though, there's no change to that definition
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: of copy.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It can't be restored on
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page 18. But over on page 19, that's the definition of forensic facility. Now you see here that the language on lines one and two, page 19 is where I am of the amendment. Forensic facility means a locked secure facility that provides a suitable clinical setting where. Now that's where the change is in the version of 7.1 that this committee saw. And as a reminder, will come back into effect on 07/01/2029. That language is licensed as a therapeutic community residence. So instead of suitable clinical setting, it would say licensed as a therapeutic community residence. And the idea here, remember, is that, and a committee may recall this, and Katie is a better explainer of this than I am, but the definition of therapeutic community residents needs to be amended a little bit in rule in order to square up with the forensic facility population. So that's gonna be happening in the emergency rules. And then as of 2029, I think the idea is it will be a better fit for the requirement to be that the forensic facility be one of those licensed as a TCR.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That's what you've changed. I don't see, we're on page 19,
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: right?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't see
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: where you've taken out the language from section five in the bill where it's licensed as a therapeutic community residence. I don't see that language in the new language.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: For the temporary. It's taken out from the temporary.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Temporary. This is the temporary.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: This is the temporary.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. It's still in the permanent. That goes into effect in three years.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So that brings me to the question, though, to that point, Chair. I would like to hear I don't know if anybody can do this for me how we get to the point where our correctional facilities I think very specifically at the Alpha and Bravo units at Southern, which is where the commissioner indicated that he envisions this occurring. Or let's talk about the correctional facility in Chittenden County where the women will be held. How are we defining those as a suitable clinical setting? I can't get there myself. I can't envision our current correctional facilities and suitable clinical setting is incredibly subjective. Incredibly. There's no definite Correct. Yeah. So is it a suitable clinical setting because we're providing services, which has been explained to us as the rationale, again, that we've been taking testimony. I do not define our correctional facilities as suitable clinical settings for forensic treatment. I just don't.
[Rep. Conor Casey, Member (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: By keeping it in there and saying it is, it gives some, I think, fodder to continue doing it into the future. I'd rather just be honest with ourselves and say it's not.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah, yeah. Maybe that's the answer for this interview. Would just strike it Let's call it what it is. We're going be housing these folks in correctional facilities. And we're not making any changes. That has been told to us as well. We're not spending money on our patients.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: They're going to be a general population.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Let's be honest.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We showed that too.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Let's be honest. If it's the weasel where it's suitable, it is objectionable, then would you change it to the forensic facility means a lock secure facility where therapy is provided or something? Like how would you?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: So my suggestion on this is lock secure facility that provides forensic incumbency restoration program.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We are doing that. That's already in one and two though, isn't it? Yeah, or at least they're already in one.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So maybe if you want to go that route, just strike that at all. It's just an option. Forensic means it locks to your facility where? And then go into, AHS provides for secure concentration, right? Stabilization treatment care. Right.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: That provides a suitable clinical setting. Yeah. Yes, I understand where you're to talk.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Does that help folks at all?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Well, I mean, it's honest.
[Rep. Conor Casey, Member (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Let's just be honest with ourselves.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Does it help? A much bigger effect. In the interim, it defines what we're doing, more honestly. I agree. Does not that removal also remove a little bit of the cover that it would provide for the permanent facility? Think I'd say we're keeping it in the 7.1 after the sunset. We didn't change it for after the sunset, did we?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So that language can come back in in 2029.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah. Well, think that makes it beyond honest. I think that draws the difference between I agree. That's And
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: the rulemaking would ensure that the clinical services that are being provided is not by contract under DOC.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yes.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there's Right.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Which is really helpful to get this committee on board, Martin. So
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: you're just saying in that first sentence then just kill that provides a suitable clinical setting.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Just that.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And keep where?
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And just go back to from facility to where? Alright. Thank you. I just wanted to make the right thing.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. Yep.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Just taking a moment here to you may notice that when it comes to things I need to remember, I use my red pen. I see it when I review it. No, it's different.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So we're just throwing a lot at you, Eric.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no, it's helpful to be specific and clear. So that brings us to so we'll strike that suitable clinical setting piece. And so over, I guess, in your version, we're going to look at subsection B next, which I guess is over on page 20, right? Now, here is where there is a sentence struck, and it may I'll read the sentence to you. It will be familiar. But if you want to look at the sentence that's being struck visually, it's gonna be in version 7.1, and it's on page 20. Oh, it's not funny. Page 20. It doesn't happen very often. Page 20 of the amendment and the underlying document. Very coincidental. But so here, I'm gonna read this is on this is talking about the general provisions that apply to general standards and rules that apply to the secure forensic facility being established by the Secretary of Human Services. And remember also that this is the temporary piece that we're talking about for three years only. Are you on 3.1 now? You on Well, I'm on 3.1 to start with. So it's on page 3.1. It's page 20. Yep. We're talking about subsection b, which is lines one through seven, the introductory part of it anyway. So you'll see the the the overall principles that are established here. The Secretary of Human Services shall establish and operate a locked secure forensic facility for the competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment, and care of persons who have been transferred pursuant to those of the two sections we just talked about, NGRI and competency. Next sentence, forensic facilities, clinical forensic and competency restoration services shall be overseen by the AHS medical director. Now in the version now in this version, there is not another sentence there. In the version that came out of this committee, there is a sentence. And I should say the version that came out of this committee and which will go into effect again in 2029. And that's the guardrail I was talking about. In the meantime, the idea was, well, in the meantime, DOC has to be a little bit more involved than they will be in the big picture. So the sentence that struck there had read and will read again in three years. And actually, interesting, will continue to read, cause it will just be on it will be on the books. It just won't be effective until three years from now. And it will say, the Department of Corrections shall not play a role in the forensic facility's operation, the provision of services, or internal security, except to provide security services for this facility at the admitting area and around the outside perimeter of the facility if the facility is co located on the grounds of a correctional facility. So I know the committee is very familiar with that sentence because we worked it over several times. But it's more the concept, which is that it'll still be there on the books. I don't know if anybody has ever-
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Every time we're doing it the center.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Exactly. And
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think everybody's ever noticed this. It's interesting and can be confusing. When you look at the Green Books, let's presume for the sake of this discussion that this is the way it stays for the next three years. The next three editions of the Green Books in the supplement, if you look at this section of law, you'll see both printed. And there are italics that say, here's the version that's in effect until 07/01/2029. And then below it, you'll see another italic that says, This version will be in effect on 07/01/2029. And you'll see that right there. They'll both be there. That's cool. Okay. But from an editorial standpoint, that can be a challenge. That's the idea.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: It gets more complicated. It's
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a dictation, yes. Legislators are complicated people. So are the issues you're trying to address. It's understandable. It's not simple issues and takes a lot of work. So let's see. So where would the next change be here? So we just talked about that. I've got three different versions I'm trying to juggle here. The next is actually right there. Next provision is subdivision one, just a couple of lines down, lines eight through 10. That's actually we'll probably have to change that back because you'll see or maybe not. So if you look at lines nine and ten, it's in a suitable clinical setting again. It's the same concept we were just talking about. And the version that passed, that's in 7.1, it says in a therapeutic community residence, again, which would still be in effect in three years, but it's the meantime situation you're talking about. So maybe you It's
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: programming where appropriate levels of safety and security.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I think you can just correct in a super
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: different way.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sense.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: A.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: know Doctor. Troy said something. I don't
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: know what the suggestion is. You said Just write in a suitable clinical setting, lines nine through ten, nine onto 10. So it would just read
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: While maintaining appropriate level of Exactly. Safety and security you
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep, that works.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And then we're at also later on. Did you say, Eric, later on it talks about suitable clinical setting?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so. I think that's Yeah, the two places we saw, I think, are the only two. Let's see. So that will take us to, and again, we're still talking about the general forensic facility standards and definition in this section, though. We're moving on. This is subsection E. So I believe for you guys, that will be on page 22, line 17.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: And
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this just adds on line 18. It just adds the agency. This talks about the secretary having to consult with all the commissioners, and this just adds also that they consult with the medical director. That's the only change there. Then so that brings us to the next page, page 23. So we're getting there. We're almost done. This is the emergency rulemaking. So this is new, and this is effective now. When you type remember, we were just looking at sections that are also affected now, but they get sunsetted in three years. This provision is effective now. It's emergency rulemaking. And you'll see that it says, on or before December 2026 So that's, as the chair mentioned earlier, that's when these rules have get proposed and promulgated, have to adopt emergency rules that that, starting on line 11, establish an interim forensic and competency restoration program that shall operate pending the completion of a permanent resident facility. So the idea is these emergency rules establish the interim program. And it does so look at the second sentence. Emergency rules shall establish for the interim forensic and competency restoration program and consistent with the standards and procedures of nine, ten, 11 of this act, and then it lists some things that have to be covered. So it has to be consistent with these sections you just looked at, nine, ten, 11. In other words, about who gets there and under what circumstances and the involvement of secretary and all of that.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I have a question. Well, two things. We wanna make sure in these emergency rules that the restoration program is not under contract with DOC. We wanna add some language
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's to that the one we were just talking about, Laura, just so I know. Yep. Yep.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I have a question. At the top of page 23, were you talking about the interim forensic facility definitions, Lines four and five shall adopt rules. Is that in conflict with the emergency rules? Are the emergency rules in place for a very short period of time before they establish the real rules? But you got lines four, five four and five under the temporary forensic facility that we just went through, establishing rules. And then you've got the emergency rulemaking in section 12. So is there a difference there or is that just an oversight?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we hadn't really thought that through. So
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: You're doing the emergency rules that will be in place for the interim, and then those emergency rules as well as section 11 sunsets. Right? Yes. Section 11. Does it say section 11 with sunset?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It does. That says that on page 25. Line five.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Will be repealed. So you got two places of making rules. Are you just thinking the emergency rules are gonna cover for that interim? Or are the emergency rules just for a few months until you get the real rules?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's the latter. I think the emergency rules because the emergency rules remain in effect for the entirety of the three years.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Well, that's my question. For the interim. The emergency rules are gonna be there for taking care of the interim. You don't need real rules for the interim. You know? And the emergency rules is a truncated process to get there. And sometimes what we do, you do the emergency rules first to at least get something going, and then you go into the real rule making. I mean, you then you put in your permanent rules. Mhmm. So is the thinking you just do those emergency rules for the interim?
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because it sounds like you're doing two sets of rules here. Maybe. And again, as I said, we haven't really talked about this issue specifically, so I'm thinking out loud here. But to address chair's point, it might be one way to do that would be to because you will have in the in the version of the of this statute that goes into effect in 2029 has that exact same sentence.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Right? The You may have just picked it up.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So maybe it should be struck here, but you keep it in
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah, you gotta keep it in the permanent one.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: In the
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: permanent one.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Right. You gotta keep it in the permanent one.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You strike it here completely.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So you wanna strike between four and five.
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think it's perhaps a good solution. Makes sense?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah, that
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: makes sense.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: We're helping
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: you, Martin.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: You're helping the poor people
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: who are
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: laborshing it in the EUC consultation.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Appreciate
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: it. Question for you. I can wait till now.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: For what?
[Rep. James Gregoire, Vice Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: For you, it's not about it's about process, not this. Are we going to come back later to see the changes, or are we voting on
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: what we need to do if that's the COVID? Yeah.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We want to recess before we vote. Do
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: you want me to talk the other thing that we're
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Yeah. I know. I know. Anything else
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: ask me to
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: So could you make sure you look at the languages on page 24, line four to six?
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I just texted one date and said we might be a few minutes late. What lines? Martin?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Four to six is what I
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: was trying to Eric and I worked on
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: After our concern yesterday. Oh, okay. Yep. Was yep. Okay.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That's the HIPAA concern. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I appreciate that because that's gonna be a big issue, is my knowledge. And then we've got the repeal sections. We've got the effective dates for repeals. Yes,
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: which I think, based on our conversation here today, I don't think need to be changed at all.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I think we're good to go. One clarifying question. We came to the conclusion I think this is for you, Martin that folks being supervised in the community are going to be under the supervision of the EOC. In public safety component, there is that additional monitoring by the medical Monitoring and in collaboration with ensuring compliance with the medical gene Does this place them under the supervision of DOC?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I think it does. I mean, I think that's the idea.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Is that a problem for the courts? Okay. Don't forget that that's a problem.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: So if there's a violation of conditions that the court has set and there's a violation, P and P goes to the court or they go to state's attorney, where would they go?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: So the way it's set up is they essentially go to the medicals. And they bring the person back into the forensic facility, and then there's a hearing to see if that was appropriate.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: That's better. So I've had a request from members of committee, but they want to take a little bit of time on this. What is your process? How does that impact you?
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: So we're going to,
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: right now, start our walk through the judiciary committee, and
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: I will highlight these additional couple suggestions from you folks. I'll let you know if I get any pushback that I can give them.
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I don't think I will, but I will.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: We're trying to help you. We're trying to address concerns of the committee members here, but also we're looking out for DOC.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: No, absolutely. Absolutely. And then once we get through that, I'll ask Eric to
[Rep. Shawn Sweeney, Clerk (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: give us a draft and then we'll be to vote by the end.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: Okay, that helps.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Will be
[Eric Fitzpatrick, Legislative Counsel (VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on On this
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: afternoon. It will be up this afternoon. That's
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you.
[Rep. Alice M. Emmons, Chair (House Corrections & Institutions Committee)]: I think it works. Thank you, everyone.
[Rep. Martin LaLonde, Chair (House Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you very much. Thank you.