Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good morning folks, welcome to Friday. Long week. Not the best week to get sick. So this morning, we're going to be taking up seven sixty six, the committee bill, and I just realized it's got a different name than what's on there now. And we're gonna hear from the department with their feedback and reactions. Good morning, commissioner. Morning. How are you doing? Good.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Sorry to hear you're sick. Hope you're feeling.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's good that you're that far away.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Yes. So sorry for those I know.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: So for the record, Sandy Hoffman, interim commissioner, DCF.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Shall we just get started? Yeah. Do

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: you have something you submitted already? I I don't I think we're gonna submit after. After. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. So that we listen intently to what you say. Great. I got it. It's a good strategy. Thanks. Hold on just a second. Let me just grab mine.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm not really accessible. Before or not.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: So I just want to say that we've been following the conversations that you've been having in here and the reviews, and we did review the proposed language. And at this point, the administration does not support the bill as currently drafted. As you know, AHS came forward with a comprehensive partner informed plan that was developed across the agency. And this does not align with that plan. In key ways, it moves us backward, not forward. And we appreciate your willingness to engage, but we're disappointed that the draft does not reflect a coordinated plan paired with the identified funding. So that's the position. And I can tell you what the key barriers are for that? That would be helpful, yeah. It does not overall reduce hotel and motel use. It restricts investments in options that better serve Vermonters with complex health and social needs and the development of a continuum of care. It broadly expands eligibility, increasing demand without defined limits, and there are no appropriations or staffing identified despite major structural changes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the bill's not done yet. That's part of I'm curious about you know, so the the elements that was laid out in the, governor's plan are all included in the bill. So that's why I'm trying to understand why you feel like they're not.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: They're the way that the some of the language is similar, but it's not necessarily it it's in in your discussions and the wording that you're putting forward, it doesn't align with the governor's plan. And I can I can talk specifics if you want? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's helpful. Thank you. So it doesn't we don't think it fundament addresses homelessness and the needs of Vermonters. It continues to warehouse vulnerable people, largely preserves the status quo. So while in the in the language, it says something like the department will target reductions and report out on the reductions. There is no cap. There's no funding to define whether or not there's a cap in it. And then there was one conversation that says, well, the department is going to have to project and make decisions based on those projections, but it doesn't give us an opportunity to do any triaging. There's no way for us to design programs for specific populations. It doesn't adequately address the level of services needed. So in our proposal, we had specific departments doing specific things. And then we were moving forward or proposing that we would have funding opportunities based on needs in specific communities. This language just says everyone will have a caseworker, and they may or may not engage depending on where they are in the process. I think that some of the committee identified a desire for us to have that engagement piece in there. But it was also the discussion was about the department kicking people out after twenty four hours if they don't engage. There's no clear articulation of what engagement means. And a legislative intent, it sounded like, to force the department to continue on regardless of engagement. The fiscal exposure, there was no caps or rate guardrails on hotel use. There are no cost projections provided, and we don't know so we don't know how many people it intends to serve and in what settings. That part's not

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: done yet.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Right. So it's hard to comment on that.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: That's what

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: I mean. Yeah. We can only comment on the conversations we heard and then the desire for us to continue doing the projections that we're doing, but at the same time saying that we're not doing well with the projections. And then program structure and clarity, there's key definitions, service scope, roles, oversights remain unclear. And then the operational feasibility, the implementation timeline is not realistic. It requires new rulemaking, staffing transitions, procurement, procurement, IT trainings, interdepartmental budget transfers, wholesale review of updating of OEO's current procurement and grant process. So there are just so many aspects that I don't know that were considered. And then rate setting. One year is an ambitious timeline to go through the rate setting process and make a shift for provider to that payment structure in just one year. There could be unintended consequences. And we had already heard back from some of the providers that it could be challenging for them, that it was potentially destabilizing. And then it creates risk for both Vermonters, disruption of services, and providers, disruption of funding. So it's ambitious redesign, but it needs significant reduction in dependence on hotel and motel, explicit budget caps and fiscal guardrails and clearer definitions and scope. And without the refinements, the proposal presents significant operational and fiscal risk to the state and the Vermonters we serve. We remain committed to engage in planning, but without these adjustments, we cannot move to that level of discussion and debate.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it's helpful to have the specifics of your feedback. Guess the one thing I do want to say is that the bill is not complete. Some of the things that you referenced, there would be dollar amounts, budgetary amounts that aligned with the governor's budget. Just to be clear, my intent is not to add anything beyond the governor's budgeted dollar amounts. And I'm not sure about the lack of clarity around working with other departments, because that seemed pretty clear to me in the draft about actually we state that it's a requirement. When we asked DCF around the health care, the shelter with health care, they said, well, I'm trying to remember who was sitting there. I can't remember if that was Lily or think it was Lily. You'll have to ask Dale. We don't know. So was that you? Okay, I remember who was. I remember it was somebody sitting there and Lily sat over there.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I couldn't remember who was like.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I went and asked Dale and they said, Well, we'll get an RFP process ready. I think that you had actually said that it would be some time towards the end of the fiscal year before some of these things got up and running, which that seems totally logical. I think that we recognize that it's an ambitious system redesign because we are trying to create a continuum of services, use Representative Maguire, where people come into the spot, and if this is the level of intensity that they need, then this is the level of intensity that they need. And obviously, we want to put as much as we can on the prevention and diversion, because that's always the least disruptive for individuals and for the system, really. I have to say I'm disappointed in your I'm just trying to come up with the word. I'm disappointed in the tenor, I guess, of the comments, not your delivery, but what the comments say, given the fact that we've been working right along. I understand when listening to people doesn't mean that everything that people say from the outside is going to make its way into. It's just an iterative process. It's going to make its way into a document. I guess I'm interested to know whether you think system redesign is necessary or not. Because if you don't, then I guess we don't have anything further to do. From our perspective, we think that system redesign is necessary. That includes lots of the elements that were in the governor's proposal, that also takes a look at creating that continuum that has resources allocated in each one of those areas. So,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: yeah, that's just my thoughts about hearing you this morning. Other committee members? Yeah, go ahead, Anne. Yeah, I just feel like even where our discussion was and where, you know, questions came up from members, well, wait a minute, Where does the money come from to do all that? And I I thought the discussion was very clear. Yeah. We're gonna come to that because there are gonna be budget caps, and that's gonna control that's gonna limit What you said, the the the of hotel and motel rooms and so forth. I thought it was pretty clear that that was unfinished work right now and that we were very aware that we needed to get into that discussion. But I didn't feel like there was any overall sense that, well, there's this new system and we're going to have to fund the whole thing, which is going to cost double, you know, or whatever. I mean, and lot of ideas floating around, but recognition and that that there is going to be a limit to the budget and that's going to affect what pieces are able to move to what degree. That's what the discussion has sounded like to me. We're not there yet. But the door is not closed. We recognize that's a key goal. That's a key element that has yet to be worked through.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: I'd like to respond to both of those things. Yes, we do think that there needs to be a system redesign. It's not working as it is right now. We don't think it's safe for people that are in the hotels and motels. We think that we can do better. And that's why we came forward with the proposal. Where there is a disconnect is, yes, you're saying that we're going to put some limits on the proposal, that there's gonna be budget restrictions. But then we're in the same place we are now, except you're widening eligibility criteria. And you're saying that DCF is gonna have to budget to it, that we're gonna have to project. That's where we are now. And that's not it's not it's not working. That's what we need. We need to have concrete limitations on things so that we're not back here in a year and hearing the disappointment that we're not housing more Vermonters in the hotels and motels. I mean, that's that's like a hard line that there's got to be a reduction, and we have to use the money to invest in those other resources so that we're not continuing to use the hotels and motels. And, yeah, the dollar amounts aren't in there, but the sentiment is really clear that you wanna expand eligibility. Yeah. I'm seeing expansion of eligibility. Disability definition in itself is way different than what's in the ADA and it's expanded.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, don't think that's been pulled together. I think there's been a clear discussion about the investments needing to be in the things that will reduce hotel and motel. There aren't numbers on it yet, but I think that direction where you're saying the investments have to be in those, I think that's very much on everyone's mind. But as the chair said, we haven't gone through that process yet of how do we align those.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: So maybe we're closer than it sounds, than it sounded in what I reviewed and our team reviewed.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The disability thing struck me because I think we made a couple minor tweaks, I I took that from May. Because I said, Oh, yeah, it's mostly what $5.94 is, which is my understanding of your input. We heard from Dale. I said we met internally and discussed everything. What we

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: learned from jail was it was expanded. Additionally, the committee has referred to, I'm going to say lack of engagement, but I don't mean It's that the lack of engagement due to a disability or circumstances, that could preclude people from engaging. And that's not it's too broad a definition for that. There has to be engagement. We can't just have someone in a hotel or motel with no engagement.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Just not

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I don't think anybody how they can engage. Yeah. It's not that they cannot engage. It's to be you know, it may be limited in some ways. It may need accommodation. Yeah. And that may

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: need clarification. I'm just going to call on people. Go ahead, Rupiah Garofano and then Rupiah.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And this is just a comment. For me, if you've been observing our proceedings over the week, we have been in active markup of the bill. So it's, as the chair mentioned, this is a work in progress and we're taking feedback. And I was hoping that your testimony today would be like, oh, this is what, more collaborative, if you will, versus like, no. It was very like, we just disagree and we don't want any part of this. So for me, that part of it feels like, it would be great if you could come in and say, these are the things that and you did some of that. These are the specifics that we absolutely don't agree with. But where there are big differences on where you either understand where we are, or it would be great if you came with a sense of curiosity, like, can we come to an agreement versus,

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: you know

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: what I mean? That's what I was hoping we would get this morning, is like, these are the things that we need to work on versus we oppose this. And related to the comments about the system redesign, I think, I've been here five years, and we have been at this since I've been here. So yes, I agree, and I appreciate that you agree that system redesign needs to happen. And I really appreciate the administration putting forward a proposal. I believe that the work we're trying to do in this committee bill is to improve on that proposal, not to change it, not to say it's wrong, not to say that it's bad, but to make it more a coherent system where it's under one organization, we are tracking and monitoring the outcomes of the changes that we're implementing so we can look back in a year and say, this is not working. Maybe eligibility is too broad, or maybe this or that, and we can tweak it as we go along. Because for me, we don't have that right now, and didn't see that in the administration's proposal. So I just want to make that comment that

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Can I respond to that? Go ahead. So one of the things

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you commission, that would be represent McGill and represent Maguire.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: So I wasn't here last year, and I wasn't here during the summer when everyone was working on this. My understanding from my team is that last year, there were some hard feelings because there wasn't clarity and transparency from the agency. There was perceived lack of clarity and transparency from the agency or the administration. So me coming in here today and being really clear on the same hardlines that we've been consistent about all along isn't that we're not engaging. So I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. We have been engaging, and there are certain things that we can't move on. So we still want to collaborate so that if I gave that impression, that's not the case. There are certain things that we can't move on. And I was just trying to be really transparent so there would be no confusion about where we stood on that. So it was an effort to have open, honest dialogue. And I'm sorry if it was perceived as less than that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Repsin McGill? Yeah, mine was just kind of

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: echoing what you're Echoing Anne. And I think the parts about disability, it wasn't that they didn't have to engage. If you've got you meet that, you don't have to engage. It was just we were talking about a way a person engages or a household engages might look different based on their disability.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Eric? Yeah, just in response to, like, in regards to, you know, coming to the table and saying this, we took testimony on H594 for two weeks. Then the decision was made, do not work on marking up five ninety four. The decision was made to do a committee bill. So to the defense of AHS, people were in support in regards to five ninety four. Decision was made to do a committee bill. They were this was a workable framework that we could have marked up, that we could have worked with to settle some of the differences that may have been. We've made the choice to do a committee bill. They're responding to the committee bill here, and they prepped to the best that they can to respond to the committee bill. So to say that they're not faithfully coming to the table, I need that to be inaccurate. They have. We worked on these things. This is it. The continuum care was laid out in May. I understand there was some wording that may not have something. But again, it could have been, we could have worked and and marked up this. You know, I I respect the decision that was made. It's part of that decision. This is where we're at. So I think we all have to practice some grace, come together, and we got to put a system in that's going to work for all. If they're coming to the table and saying, we don't have the capability of applying this as it is now, then let's put the mechanisms into place that will provide that ability. But if we're going to come to this understanding like, oh, if you don't agree with this, we don't agree with this, then, well, this is where we're at. So, this is where we're at.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I do have a question because it's just a minute. Because the definition of disability, really, there's a lot that pivots on the definition of disability. So it's the exact same definition that was in May. The only thing that I had was substance use disorder, because it was clear that the department was looking to create specialized services for people with substance use disorder who are also homeless. That's the only thing that is different from the definition of disability that you all presented. So, to say the definition is too broad, I don't really understand that. And we'll need to develop an understanding of what exactly you mean by that, because I thought what you all put in May was good, and that's what was incorporated. But it does hinge on a lot of decisions, so we have to have a deeper understanding of what you mean by that. Go ahead, representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Hoping that I get a little clarity around an issue related to motels and the projection issue, if you will. The administration's position and as reflected in May is a decrease of the hotels and motels. I have taken our conversation to be an acknowledgment of that and also move towards decreased use of hotels and motels. And if I understood correctly today, a concern you're expressing is that there'll be some projection work needed to be done. And I'm just not clear. Isn't isn't that something that AHS does in a lot of different fields and areas within the agency and programs? So I'm you could eliminate that.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Yeah. But then we're not called in and then and then learning of disappointment around us not housing enough individuals in hotels and motels based on our projections. So even now, we're still trying to anticipate how many days we're going to need cold weather and how many folks, we can get rooms, where we can so we're still navigating that. So it's not I mean, maybe it's a science, but it's not something that we do all the time. And it's such a heated issue that it's challenging for us. So if there were caps in the legislation, it would be less challenging for us. And there wouldn't be this idea that we need to figure it all out. And when there's, if there's extra funding that we didn't do everything we could do, we were projecting, and we didn't know what the rest of the winter would look like. So it's just very challenging. And then things come up where maybe a hotel goes offline, or we find another one that we can add. So it's just a it's dynamic. It's dynamic and it's challenging for us.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I I think with respect to the point of there being people coming back with criticism

[Brendan (AHS Policy & Regulations liaison)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I think we're going to face criticism. This body, the agency, the the administration, we are not gonna make everyone happy with our efforts here. So I think we're going to get we're going to get criticism. So I think that's part that's part of part

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: of it.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Yeah. But if we know that we can put something to prevent it so we can focus our energy on other things, then let's do that. Don't just let us keep going forward with a system that isn't working, that we agree isn't working. And while there are statements that the department will identify areas where we can reduce the use, we're also saying, and this population needs to be there in this population, and there's no time limits. And so there's no way to tighten it. As we interpret this now, it would be very challenging for us to triage populations and to tighten it, to reduce it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Cole. Thank you.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I wanted to respond to where I think perhaps, at least from my perspective, it seems a little misguided about where criticism is coming from. It's not at all about budget projections and, like, except I mean, maybe a little bit because we had so much that wasn't allocated that it was supposed to be for this purpose. And that felt pretty like a policy initiative rather than like a real budgeting today, maybe not. But anyway, but I do think that rather than the focus being on like budget budgeting criticism for the long haul, which we of course know it's a projection, we do the best we can and you're doing the best we can. It's rather, I think the little bit of inconsistency about who gets what and who is allowed to be housed and who's not, because some of the requirements have been, even when we do outline those eligibility requirements in statute, still are facing a lot of inconsistency about who's being housed and who's not. And I think one beautiful aspect of this bill that we are trying to move forward is taking some of that pressure out of your hands because that's really where that tension is coming in, like the hundreds and hundreds of appeals that people are having to do, the same hearings over and over again. To reduce that administrative holdup and stress that is to go to a neutral system that has been working and unify case providers who are really, or case workers who are working really hard to connect on a human to human being level. Yeah, to just funnel this into a streamlined system that is consistent instead of seeing you guys as the bad guys needing to call the shots. I think there's a much more integrated way we can do this all looking together that could serve in everyone's favor and take some of that pressure off and some of that maybe anger and frustration that we're

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: seeing around. That was a case in point example of where you say we made a policy decision, and that's why there was this that we're not housing everyone we could. There were decisions that we made that were safety concerns. We made decisions because we had to make decisions to keep people safe.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, if it's okay for me to respond to this one. Sure. I don't know, guys. Maybe this actually is new to me. I don't think we have heard much testimony on that specific piece of that. It's a pretty large allocation to the budget, and I don't think I want to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: make sure we're all talking about the same thing, I guess. Are you talking about the $11,000,000 in carry forward? That's

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: FY25. Before were Okay. And I don't think we did hear testimony on that particular piece. And so we don't really understand if it was a safety issue, why the legislature didn't hear about it. So it felt like a policy decision. So that's what I was referring to.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But thank you for it. And I will say that what Megan Smeaton, Megan Smeaton, I always think of Megan Tierney Ward, but Megan Smeaton said was that those funds were utilized essentially to develop new shelters. And they weren't appropriated in the HOP appropriation. They were appropriated in the GA appropriation. That's where my frustration arose. And I think I was probably pretty clear about that frustration because when the legislature appropriates it in a line item, that's where it's expected to go unless you request an adjustment in BAA to move it someplace else. And that was just being done behind the scenes with no conversation with us. That's not you. It predates you. But you're the lucky one that's sitting there here right now.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: There were two more things that I wanted to So another one was that there's not equal access to, I'm assuming you mean hotels and motels.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: What I was referring to there is that someone each application was looked at. It didn't congruently, depending on which caseworker they had, we've had testimony that people's interpretations of what qualified you was different. Even when we had those strict guidelines set out, that's why so many hundreds of appeals had to happen over and over and over again, too, which is So a big administrative the appeals, I think,

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: that you're talking about, was that for the 80 rule? Is that what you're talking about? I think there were multiple for the same thing. So you're

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: the

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: way it's being conveyed, I think, is I think it's all rooted to in the idea that we're unable to triage right now. There are an end. It's not the same for everyone. And right now, it's first come, first served. How do

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: you do that? So my response would be, this is precisely why we're trying to lean into the HMIS system, which would do the triage for you. And it would be less appeals to the Human Services Board because it's very concrete and we're not coming up with these, what feels almost like, I don't know, we're making these really big ethical decisions like pregnant people versus different kinds of disabilities. Those decisions, I don't know if this is the right place that it should be happening because of all the administrative costs and burden and honestly, having to fight against each other is coming through this. So that's why I feel it's so important that we're really leaning into this new way to really synthesize how we categorize who goes where to maximize health outcomes. Really, that's the bottom line. Think that's one

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of the key takeaways for this. That was a little bit of an moment for me when we were talking about using the HMIS system and saying, Okay, well that results in a prioritization, based upon a number of different factors. I haven't gone through the 30 page assessment, nor do I want to. So that felt like a concrete way to actually take it, to have the decision making be the same across the state and be engaging with multiple providers and multiple departments as the And needs I actually asked for feedback on that concept and I never got, I sent a note and I never got any feedback about it. So I didn't know whether or not that was a concept they just liked or a concept they didn't like. So we moved forward with that concept since it was utilizing a system that already exists and didn't involve the creation of a new system. It didn't involve training and resources for people who aren't currently using the system. And that gets to sort of timeframes. The timeframes for doing this stuff is all totally open at this point in time. So it'd be helpful to know, for instance, how long would it take to have people go through the training process to be able to input data into a coordinated entry and have that prioritization pop out at the other end. I mean, along the way I have asked for feedback on specific ideas and that being one of them, I didn't get a response.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: I don't know who you sent it to.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah, I don't want to repeat myself too much, you know, I'm looking at my notes on discussion and all, and some again, of the big areas you're talking about, this is a no go because you've done this. It's like these are ones where some of this was raised and it was like, yeah, that's a part we haven't gotten to yet. That was what was said, was raised on some of those issues. We haven't gotten there yet. And so it sort of feels like, I don't even remember how various markups have gone, but that if there was participation when a certain point was coming around to a direction, just like we have other people who are saying, But don't forget about this, it would be really helpful to have the agency saying, Well, you're forgetting that this is really important if you consider that. And then if we said, yeah, well, we've considered it and we disagree. Well, I think then you have a reasonable position to say, well, that's not something we can live with. But it doesn't feel, I know that there's offline conversations, but it doesn't feel like that to point to our committee discussions as opposed to a couple of people's, but you were pointing to based on the committee discussions, then the agency has to be a part of those discussions to raise those things during those discussions, which is different from offline conversations. But you're not pointing to the offline conversations. You keep going back to listening and hearing this said and this said, and that doesn't seem very fair to kind of inject that after the point, saying, Well, I've heard all these discussions and this is all not acceptable. We did have those conversations, those offline conversations, and we did express what the administration's position was on some of those points,

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: and we assumed that that was brought forth and shared with the committee. It was. Yeah. So I'm not that to me is like, that was our position. We haven't wavered on that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's a lot of details to work out when you're working on a bill like this. And so, you know, I'll be honest. We were promised to have a department person in the room, and it hasn't been consistent. And I don't know if that was an expression of disengagement or frustration with the process or you know, I'm not I don't wanna assign value to any of it. I just It is helpful that people engage in that sort of like in the moment.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And to be weighing in and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: saying, yeah, that's not gonna work, or how would we do that, or we need more definition around this. Those are those are things that I, you know, hope if we move forward on this bill that we can have happen next week. Anybody else have any other questions or comments? Representative Lamoille, do you have any questions?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Not at this moment, no. Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Commissioner.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Appreciate it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

[Sandy Hoffman (Interim Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Thanks for your work on this.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, so I, you know, when you said, I'm sorry, just before you get up. Who would you like us to communicate with? I'll be honest, I've been communicating through Brendan.

[Brendan (AHS Policy & Regulations liaison)]: I'm Chair for Record of Brighton at the Policy and Regulations of Community Services. Please continue to communicate with me. That's been working well. And I would just acknowledge that we have been expecting some communications to that and come through with the email, so including latest draft in this bill.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think Nobody has the latest draft. What you see is it.

[Brendan (AHS Policy & Regulations liaison)]: When this was introduced, we had communicated by text and you said we're gonna send a copy. I think that's neither here nor there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's publicly available on our website. And nobody has seen there hasn't been a new draft since the one that dropped on Tuesday. Okay, so we'll continue to communicate via Brentwood. Okay. Thank you. Okay, folks. We're gonna we're gonna take a brief break, Laurie.