Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: welcome back this morning, folks. This morning, we are going to take up S-one 157, which is on our committee's website. And I do want to call your attention to that late yesterday, we received memo from the ACLU, which is also posted on our website. Hold on. I gotta refresh.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Oh, this

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: might

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: drive me nuts.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sorry. My iPad is not cooperating. Okay.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Thanks. Yeah.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This isn't a lot.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Katie? We do have a copy of S-one 157 on our web page today. Good morning. Good morning.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Tina McGill, Office of Legislative Counsel, you have a draft on website. Two colors, and I'll tell you why. The newest colors are blue. I know that's hard to read on a hard copy. It's not so bad on the screen. The reason I'm retaining the old highlighting, so I'm trying something new and seeing if I can bring a highlighted copy back to the Senate so they can literally see exactly the changes we made. So give it a try. If this is too confusing, I won't keep doing it. But for today, it's $2

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: will you pull it up? Yeah. Thank you. I'm just My iPad's not cooperating this morning. So first,

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we have the definition section. You'll remember when we last met, we were talking about changing some of the antiquated language in the chapter. What we found is that sort of when you pull one string, something else unravels somewhere else. So I had a discussion with the health department, and I think they're interested in maybe doing a more comprehensive review of the chapter to clean up the language. So in order to draw a line somewhere, I made the change of substance abusers and changed it to individuals with substance use disorder. That felt fairly discrete. And I didn't make any other changes. So that's what you're seeing in section one. So you'll see this take through here. Substance abusers would be individuals with substance use disorder. In Subdivision 2, recovery residents, here are the changes we talked about yesterday. It means a shared living resident supporting residents recovering from a substance use disorder that provides residents with peer support and assistance to accessing support services and other community resources related to substance use disorder. Can you just go back up?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And what page are you on? That's one. So you added that definition.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I did because to strike it out in every instance that it appears, had to add that subdivision five. Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. I didn't understand that from my perspective.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm sorry. There are four instances where substance abusers appeared. And in order to catch all of them, I had to add the Subdivision 5 in to do it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it just brings up the question for me of the title of designated substance abuse counselor. That is one of the strings.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So substance abusers to individuals with substance use disorder throughout pulls up this definition. And then this definition is probably, I think the health department has identified this as one of the ones they would like to change. But as we go further, then there are further changes. Okay, all right.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I spoke with folks from the health department as well. We have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a commitment from them to update language, full language in this chapter to be more current and use more respectful language as the field has evolved. We'll be doing that over the summer. And it will take a bit of work because it's not

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: fast.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let's just put it that way. Okay. Right. That just threw me off for a minute having it. That's okay. All good.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Similarly, there another string with substance abuse crisis?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Then we pulled up 4,810, which had a lot of issues or a lot of antiquated language in it. Amend that section. You'd amend it here, you amend it at four eight hundred ten, and then you'd see 10 other places or top words that you'd probably feel were antiquated and wanna fix. So it was sort of a little bit

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of a Yeah, once you started, So thank you for making the choice of highlighting and making the change for the individuals themselves, which is the most important change.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, great.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So on 14, you have the same change, substance abusers to individuals with substance use disorder. Subdivision 15, same change. Subdivision 16, same change. In section two, no changes to that section. And that brings us to section three. This is, again, the language about immediately exiting or transferring a resident. So we start off with what is in the agreement. And in Subdivision 5, you made some changes yesterday, but no further changes after we looked at this highlighted language in Subdivision 5. But then you do have some changes to the other criteria that have to be met to exit somebody immediately. So first, in Subdivision D, the health department proposed replacing stabilization bed with reengagement bed. So that's the change on line 12. And you wanted to add the criteria that the recovery resident has provided written notice to the resident containing the date and rationale for the temporary removal or transfer and options for returning to the recovery residence. And then F, the concept is the same, but I just switched around the language to match how it appears up above. So the recovery residence has established a grievance process approved by VTAR, another certifying organization approved by the Department of Health. Your change in top of page six, subdivision three, switching out any function or functions as necessary to carry out functions related to the operation of recovery residents. Subdivision four, this subsection shall only apply to a recovery residents that Oh, let me walk you through this one. So when we left, we had that this was to be a definition, recovery residents as used in this section means. The health department raised some concerns about having matching definitions in two titles and what happens if a definition has changed in one place and not the other. So what this does is instead it's not a definition per se, but it references the definition. So this subsection that we just looked at would only apply for recovery residents that meets the definition of recovery residents in Title 18, Section one of your bill and is certified. I believe that's it for changes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that still achieves the outcome of these exceptions only applying to certified recovery residences, not any recovery residents. Yes, it's just framed, not as a definition. Are there any questions? Yeah, go ahead, Doug.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: This one is pretty basic, I think. But I'm just back up top of page three, the division's responsibilities. We've added number five at the top page three, line two, recovery residences. Where did recovery residences sit with respect to responsibility or are they just?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In statute, I don't think it appeared anywhere. Okay.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Someone from the side would be happy to chat.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm still fighting with this electronic piece of equipment. Go ahead, Emily.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Good morning, Emily. Trudeau with Health Department. It is always set within the Division of Substance Use Programs since its inception. There have always been, along with working from sort of budgeting programs, work and

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it means happening in communities for decades. But as far as the work that we've been doing it for over twenty years, and this is formalizing that. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Other questions? Other comments or concerns?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: thing that I see coming up is when we say written notice, I think there might be alternative means of communicating with someone and making sure that we're encompassing those.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We've had language on

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Around that is in their preferred method of communication. In

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: our nine thirty eight, I think it is. Yeah. It has to be something that's documentable. Yeah, that's Because that's one of the whole purposes. It's not just the conversation. Oh, yeah. Do

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: you even have in writing, because that's

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: documentable, as well as in their preferred

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: method of communication, whether that's text or anything? I

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: think David Regal testified yesterday. I thought he referenced email. Emails. They do. Or

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, don't No, because we do Katie, you've got some words that you can We want to make sure it's documentable. It can be verified, guess.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You mean about, like, a text message might be a written notice, and that is maybe outside the scope of what's easily documentable? I think

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: email, on the testimony, might be So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: could we say it maybe written or electronic? Oh, there we go.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. That makes sense. Okay. Any

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: other thoughts? I'll be

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: taking thoughts. Go ahead, you do. Everything with me.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: On F, on page five, the recovery of the residents has established a grievance process approved or a certifying organization. I'm just thinking a few of the people who submitted feedback had talked about this independent grievance process. I'm wondering if we could make this temporary, and then in the background, put a group together to work on creating a standardized grievance process. So we learn in other systems having these different systems and rules in different places can be really extra confusing for people in crisis. I also think whether someone is right or wrong, a grievance process is a really important way for them to move on, to have an opportunity to have a voice. And I think we have a lot of history, as was raised, in some of our systems when there is not an independent system of oversight. And that's hard to say because I know the people doing this work and I value their work. They're helping people transform their lives. But I also just want to make sure that if things change, there is that fallback.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So what you're saying is that because these organizations are members of VTAR, that that's not sufficient distance independence in from that appeal process or grievance process. Brenda. This is new to me. So okay. So somebody's being violent.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: How do you stop the right? Okay. You need to get out. You're gonna kill somebody. You have to stop and send them an electronic. You'll be here. How does that work?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We discussed that yesterday, actually. We we So how does that work? They would take immediate action. And we said yesterday that the depart that this this bill requires rulemaking by the department and that the department would address the time period in rule. So, like, within, you know, twenty four or forty eight hours If or I was gonna say, if they're gonna kill somebody, you need to get them out of it. Somebody's being write them a note and say, Somebody's being violent, that's something we would expect people to take immediate action about. So the rulemaking process is a public process. People have an opportunity to provide input. So And both people who are directly impacted, whether you're a staff person or provider or an individual who lives in one of these residences or has before, they'll have opportunities for public input.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So is it in here that the proprietor or whoever has the recovery center has to get written within thirty days or something so that the grievance can't come back and say, hey, you kicked me out and you didn't give me any help. Well, I've lived all this. So I know, I know because I've lived it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's all for people that are trying to enforce safety for others.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We've I added don't want to be rude, but it's pretty rough.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Page seven, Brenda, look at page seven of the bill. We've added the components of rule making for the department to consider. Page seven, I got the old one.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: This part hasn't changed since yesterday.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, it says everything on my page seven. I have a normal Thank you. We also have, just so you know, So, you understand the process through the administrators Administrative Procedures Act. This committee also has an opportunity as the policy committee to review regulations prior to their enactment and to determine whether or not is consistent with the legislative intent. So we will have an opportunity to review to ensure that the department has included information that we intended for them to include. So

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I understand representative McGill, unless you've lived this, you really have no clue what you're putting people at risk. The grievance is nice

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to live this. Oh, I didn't know. You did start the conversation

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: by saying you don't know much about it. Well, I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: will tell you. Apologize. Okay. But we need to really think because you're enabling bad behavior. So we need to really, really, really think about this, Bill. Okay. So the one thing that I am going to insist on is us being respectful of individuals. I apologize. No, no, I'm not talking about I'm talking about the people. Thank you for doing that. But I'm also talking about the people who are being impacted by substance use disorders. And I know that, but you're not helping them. Could you let me finish my statement. Thank you. I want to ensure that we're having respectful language of individuals and not making assumptions about what does help and what doesn't help because we're not in their shoes at that moment in time. We do want to have the correct tools for people to be able to use in an emergency situation. We had that discussion yesterday in committee. I don't know if you were on or not. I can't recall. But we had that discussion yesterday and we had representatives of the people who provide these services online and they were comfortable with that. Yeah, don't see this as helping people with recovery. Thank you. Okay, Alright. Yes, Doug.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: To represent McGill's point, I I I have some reluctance to creating an additional apparatus or or or structure and wonder if what we've inserted with respect to the reporting language and inclusion of exit and transfer data, whether that will help us with our monitoring, if you will, of the exits and whether grievance processes and the like were followed. To me, that seems like a level of checks and balance that works at high end rather than setting up different apparatus outside for the grievances.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I I I think for me, I would just say that I I think that we don't know that I guess I'm trying to figure out what problem we're trying to solve. And so we don't know that this doesn't work. And so I'm leaning more on what Doug said. Yeah. I was just gonna

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: go on in there. The National Alliance in Recovery Residencies, and as well as the SAMHSA guidelines that are outlined, provide all of these mechanisms in regards to, they're all in place through certification. To add another layer as Doug would be especially, it's really not relevant. Right. I wouldn't, what I'm getting at is they are the evidence based nationally recognized agencies that govern and provide certification. Therefore, it's validly important that we follow what is already put into place and not add something that could have the potential

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of causing harm. Right. I understand both points of view, that there is established processes. It's a national organization. They had to get certified by the national folks, But it is also, these recovery residences are members, if you will, of VTAR. I understand the comment that it's not really sort of independent. It's not independent of the system in the way, you know, like the Human Services Board would be. And I'm not for anybody from NHS listening. I'm not talking about having this go to the Human Services Board. So don't don't go there. So I understand both points of view. I haven't heard any testimony that says that this does not work yet. But I think we'll have an opportunity to see it in practice and also have a bill that will be amending all of these statutes again.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And I'm fine with that. I'm just raising it as

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I I

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: would raise it with sash. And I just have a, I think, very distinct view of separations of power. And we'll always point out when we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: should consider our dynamic here. I appreciate that. Yeah, go ahead, Esme.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I feel like there might be more to the story a little bit about the investigative process would be TAR and who is precisely doing the work. But I but I don't have the information as

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: that I think on

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the sideline, we might have to hear

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: about the process itself. But I don't know if that is something we want to hear more detail about. Well, would

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: want to hear from Jeff, and I don't know if he's available.

[Emily Trudeau, Vermont Department of Health]: I could ask, but I Yes, I mean, sorry, I would.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm looking at you, but I can't

[Emily Trudeau, Vermont Department of Health]: make it all. I can also imagine

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it's helpful that if you want me to ask Jeff if he can join, I can do that. And also,

[Emily Trudeau, Vermont Department of Health]: there is a process that's independent that there's a, I couldn't make it up, I can

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: also ask you to do that.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's okay. Like I'm still gonna vote for it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If I think can put other person who wants to hear about it. So yeah, Emily.

[Emily Trudeau, Vermont Department of Health]: So as far as the one clarification, the residences are not members of the tar, they are certified by us. I do

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think that's an important clarification. Okay, thank you.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: As part of that, I think the other part

[Emily Trudeau, Vermont Department of Health]: of it is V tar has volunteers that do the certification process. So they're not affiliated

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: with

[Emily Trudeau, Vermont Department of Health]: the residents themselves. So it is truly independent. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think if Jeff was able to describe a little bit for us what that process looks like, if he's able to hop on. I don't know if that's possible or not, but

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I I

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I appreciate you bringing it up because we have had a lot of testimony in this committee about the Human Services Board and appeals for people receiving supports and services in the agency of Human Services. And if we're not paying attention to it, nobody else is gonna be paying attention to it. So even though I think this process, from what I know of it, is fine, I think it's fine to ask a few more questions and make sure that people are feeling comfortable enough with it to move along. What I'm going to do is So Katie is here with us for a number of things. So we're going to switch to the next item and see if Jeff is able to join and then we will come back if he is. Okay? He said he can in a few minutes. In a few minutes. Okay. So maybe I first should ask, does anybody have any other questions or concerns that they want to bring up about S-one 157? So that once we sort of get that additional information, hopefully people will be okay. All right. Okay, Katie, let's go to the next item on the agenda, which is that's the wrong day.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is it s two zero six?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is. It is

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: excuse me.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: S two zero six. S two zero six is longer. Oh, I see. We do s two forty three because I think that Jeff will be on in just a few minutes. And we've missed you, so we're glad we've gotten to see you in the

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: last days. I know. A few times last week, I checked the schedule and said, what are they up to today?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I open have two zero six, but s two forty three coming in at two pages, I have to imagine is shorter than two zero six.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is. For sure.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let me get pulled up. Yes. So this is quite a short bill. This started as just a straightforward appropriation to the Vermont Language Justice Project. I know you'll hear a lot more information from Senator Golrang and probably from Vermont Language Justice Project themselves about the work they do. But they are an entity that makes videos and other forms of communication about public health issues in the state and multiple languages so that that information is widely distributed. The testimony downstairs is that they've lost some CDC funding and hence this was brought. As we will see, there is no longer an appropriation in the bill. And the idea is that it would be funded if the funding moves in the big bill. You have Jeff here now. Do you want

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: me to stop? No, you can go through this. This is not gonna take long.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So we have a longer finding session that Vermont ranks sixth per capita in refugee resettlement. The governor has recognized the important role that immigrants play in Vermont's economy. When health information is available in only one language and only in written format, it creates barriers that lead to confusion. The Vermont Language Justice Project's videos show a critical gap in patient education, particularly for families with limited English proficiency. The Vermont Language Justice Project has created and distributed videos pertaining to COVID nineteen and COVID nineteen testing, the importance of immunizations and how immunizations work, MPOXX, preventing mosquito and tick bites, and safety during flood events, hot and cold weather, cyanobacteria outbreaks, wildfires, and more. The Vermont Language Justice Project's videos are made in 10 to 21 of the languages commonly spoken in Vermont and in collaboration with the Department of Health. Last two, the Vermont Language Justice Project is usually able to respond to a crisis within twenty four hours with information in multiple languages and in multiple formats, such as written translations, audio files, and videos. And in January 2025, the project's grant from CDC abruptly ended, leaving it to be funded solely through donations from individuals and foundations and through fee for service support. Then we have the language itself that in fiscal year '27, to the extent funds are appropriated for this purpose, the Department of Health shall distribute 150,000 to the project to prepare informational materials for Vermonters who speak languages other than English in the event of a disease outbreak or other public health emergency, including ongoing personal and public health. It's effect July '26.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. And I think for committee members, we're gonna hear about this later today, but it is also, I think we have some news around the appropriation side of things, and there may be some access to funds that were not accounted for here in the bill. So we'll take a look at it and we'll decide in the end whether we actually need a bill or not. Hopefully, can get private funds because even a 150,000 right now with people can't even feed their families is a lot. So hopefully, can work hard and 150,000 do a GoFundMe page. I'll donate to it, but I can't vote for anything that keeps burdening my taxpayers. Okay. Thank you, Katie. And Jeff, we're back on one fifty seven.

[Jeff (Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences - VTAR)]: Thank you so much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Did you get the did you get the question?

[Jeff (Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences - VTAR)]: Yes. I've been

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: following the

[Jeff (Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences - VTAR)]: last several days. Okay. I have a memo, that I can send to you for the record as well, that details, the grievance process that we have in place. But in short, it is a national standard for organizations to have an approved grievance process as part of the certification. So each individual home will have their own grievance process that they will share with the residents. On top of that, NAR asks that each of the affiliates have a secondary process, Whereas if the individual's grievance doesn't appear to be taken seriously enough, or, you know, they don't feel like they've been heard, they can bring it to VTAR for review. And I just want to put an asterisk on, we are a certifying body, we're not an association. I know the language is confusing when we say alliance, but I want to make very clear, we're not an advocacy body for the operators. We're an advocacy body in the sense of scaling this resource for the individuals that are served. So we take very seriously the quality and the safety of these homes. And so to also further the independence of this process, we have volunteers outside of our organization that will be assigned to look at the concern. So they would meet with the resident and the operator, hear both sides of it, and then come back with a recommendation to the VTAR board. So that gives it even further separation. And we actually have volunteers that have lived experience in this area lined up to do that work. Fortunately, we don't get many situations that lead to that sort of thing, because when a concern is raised, we really encourage the operator and the organization to work through that. And oftentimes that step has been skipped. So when we come in and say, hey, folks, we are pleased to look at this, But before we do, let's see if you can work it out. And most often, that happens and is best for all involved. So I think we have a very robust process that's already in place. The idea of another higher level review, I don't oppose if folks feel that that's necessary, but I do think we have a pretty robust process in place.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you for describing that. And it would be great if you could forward that, the written description, and we'll just post that so people can review that. But thank you for providing that clarification and also describing the relationship between the residences, the individual residences and VTAR being independent. That's helpful.

[Jeff (Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences - VTAR)]: Certainly. The other thing I just want to put an asterisk on, David mentioned this the other day, it's a little bit hokey, but we have the bulldog poster in the homes, and it says, Do you have a beef? And it makes very clear that it's posted every time I do a certification visit, I make sure it's there. And so it's also in the handbooks in terms of the process. So we make it very clear that the residents do have this opportunity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Do people have other questions for Jeff? Okay. Thank you so much for hopping on, Jeff. Appreciate it. And thank you, Meg, for assisting us with having Jeff here. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Jeff (Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences - VTAR)]: And with regard to thank yous, thank you to all of you. It sounds like we're in the home stretch. I'm so grateful to all of you.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thanks, Chuck.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. So we're back on one fifty seven. Are there any other questions or comments or concerns before we move to a vote? Katie, are you going to want to Take the number. You did already. Alright, as as the clerk is ready, which he is. What's the number, Katie? 31. Oh, I would entertain a motion to approve version three point one of s one fifty seven. That's the sorry. This is a strike call limit. So yeah. I was gonna say as amended, but it's not just the whole thing. I'll make a motion. Okay. Any final comments? Okay. The clerk, please call the roll.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Bishop? Yes. Representative Cole? Yes. Representative Donahue? Representative Eastes? Yes. Representative Garofano?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Maguire? Yes. Representative McGill? Yes. Representative Nielsen? Representative Noyes? Yes. Representative Steady? Yes. Representative Wood?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. And And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Bishop will be reporting this bill. And so it will go on notice tomorrow and will be on the floor on Tuesday. Alright. The bill that we approved yesterday will be up tomorrow, but just as a reminder to people, we are not going to we're gonna ask for a one day extension. Oh, an email.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I sent you an email last night.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, I did not see that. No.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because there is per diems.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hello. I mean, I just want to say thank you to Emily and Jessica for being here. We're very excited. Thank you. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because there is a per diem.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It doesn't require any money.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's Ian sent me an email last night that I sent over.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Sorry. Whatever. No. It's fine. No. No. That's fine. I'm like, is it? It's all good. It's not. It's not any money. Oh, okay. Whenever per diem is mentioned in a bill, it's in the department budget, and the department has said that they're fine with that. We have that in writing. But they will send it to appropriations to say there's no fiscal impact. It's a procedure. That actually

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: works out to send it

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to because they'll get it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that'll be fine. Then you won't need to ask for an extension. And thank you for your work. Yeah, I hadn't seen it yet. So thank you for pointing that out, Anne. Okay, so we'll have two bills probably on tap. I'm just gonna let her know. Okay, so now we're going to walk through S206, Katie. Do you want a break? I love the weather. Right

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: there with you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It's great.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I the building. It is. Mean, there's so many people

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Here's 206. I know that you've been anticipating this one since you worked on pre k earlier this month. So what this bill does, already, child care providers that are regulated are regulated through CDD. This bill did not change that CDD would continue to regulate child care programs. So that includes child care programs, center based child care programs and registered and licensed child care programs. What this does, instead of looking at the program in its entirety, is it is a license for the individual provider. So if, for example, a center based program and there are five childcare providers within that program, each one would have a license. This creates a number of tiers of licensure, and we'll walk through that. It also creates different variances for different situations. Several of them do sunset after a certain period of time, but one of them does not. Okay, let's dive in. So OPR, this would be one of the professions regulated by OPR. So this first section Oops, sorry. Email from Daphne. Daphne, I just sent it to Megan. I'm sorry. Okay. So in this first section, there's a list of existing professions that OPR oversees, and this adds early childhood educators to that list of professions. And then in section two, we create a new chapter entitled 26, which is the professional regulation chapter for early childhood educators who are working in programs regulated by CDD. This chapter is amended twice in this bill with different effective dates. So what we're looking at in this section two is the creation of the board and the mechanism for operating the board. This actually will appear in the middle of the chapter eventually. But the idea is that the board would have to be set up, the Board of Early Childhood Education, before the licensing program can begin. So the board is created first. And then in section three, we see all of the specifics about who would be regulated under what license types. And all of the details that you're probably most interested in is in section three. So first we have this board being created. The board is to have nine members appointed for five year terms by the governor. Two are public members, two each of ECE one. ECE is early childhood educator. To save myself, I'm going to say ECE. So ECE one, ECE two, ECE three, and then there's a licensed type of family child care provider. So there'd be one family child care provider on the board. All members are Vermont residents. The members who are early childhood educators shall have been active in practice in Vermont for not less than the preceding three years, and they need to be active while they're on the board. The public members are to be individuals that don't have a personal financial interest through a spouse, parent, child, or sibling, and the activity is regulated other than as a possible consumer of its services. Appointment is to be made without regard to political affiliation on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability. Vacancy is filled in the same manner as the initial appointment and board members shall not serve more than two consecutive terms. Board, proceed.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm sorry. I think I just missed something that you said earlier about the board. I thought I heard you say that the board is created as a first step, but it references ECEs one, two, and three, which is then

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which I would part of it be creating a situation?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Because there won't technically be ECP-one's two or They three's rule

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: won't exist. Yeah, they'll exist technically a few years later. One way to deal with that is to parse out some of the definitions section. Some of the definitions would take effect earlier than other definitions. So you'd amend the definition section twice. Yeah. But in theory, it's talking about setting up a regulatory program for license types that are not yet in existence.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. And even if you had a different even if you set up a different implementation date or effective date, you still wouldn't be able to call them these titles because it's only the board and the office of professional regulation that can confer. And you could

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: have members that have the qualifications for each one, two, that's the way to kind of get around that, because you're never going to have that to get the

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Right, initially.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But we'd have to spell that out, that whoever's appointed to the board should have the qualifications that are referenced for DC one, two and three, so they're all represented.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that was good point. Because you can't have someone be appointed as something that doesn't exist. Right, so the initial point would have to be different than the

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: ongoing amendment. So it would have

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the qualifications for the initial board.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then we would have to amend again to go back five months, it's been implemented.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can it just be language in this paragraph B about the initial, initial members meeting the ECE, intended to meet the ECE qualifications, we'll have those.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You can do that, but then you'd probably wanna strike it out later.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, so just for ease, it's a good issue to bring up, but we don't need to move to markup.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: A childcare question.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: good issue, right? Katie can be prepared for thinking about the issue.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So board procedures. Annually, board is to meet to elect a chair, vice chair, and secretary. Meetings are worn and conducted in accordance with open meeting law. Is that open meeting law? No, that's title three. I have to confirm what one VSA Chapter five is. Majority of the members of the board shall talk to the quorum. All business shall be transacted by a majority vote of the members present in voting unless otherwise provided in statute. Excuse me. And then you have the duties of the board. So the first thing the board has to do is adopt rules necessary for the performance of its duties in accordance with this chapter, including activities that must be completed by an applicant in order to fulfill the educational and experiential requirements established by this chapter. Do

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: boards like this follow the state? Is 3BSA Chapter 25?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: LCAR. Is that LCAR?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. So I just didn't know if they had to follow the same rules.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They do. Okay.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Subdivision two of the board has to provide general information to applicants for licensure as early childhood educators. Explain appeal procedures to licensees and applicants and complete procedures to the public, and it has to use the administrative and legal services provided by OPR under Title III. The board is to conduct hearings and exercise its authority as provided in Title III. So as we gathered in Title III, there is a lot of language about governing OPR's functions. Okay. So when we get to the top of page four, this is section three. This amends the chapter that was created in the previous section. And now you'll see we have subchapter headings. So everything we just looked at will fall into subchapter two. So you'll see the ellipses when we get there in the new subchapter heading. So first we have definition of board, an early childhood educator is an individual providing care and educational instruction to children from birth through eight years of age and a program regulated by CDD. Including planning and implementing intentional developmentally appropriate learning experiences that promote the physical health and social, intentional, linguistic and cognitive growth of children establishing, maintaining safe, caring, inclusive and healthy learning environment observing, documenting and assessing children's learning and development developing reciprocal culturally responsive relationships with families and communities, and engaging in reflexive practice and continuous learning. And then we have definitions of the license types. There will be more specific information on the particular criteria somebody needs to meet to meet these categories later on. So in definitions, ECE one is an individual who practices early childcare education as an assistant educator in a program under the supervision of an ECE two or three or a teacher who's exempt from this chapter and licensed by AOE under Title 16. And that person would have endorsements in early childhood education, early childhood special education or elementary education. EC2 is a person who practices as a lead or primary educator, supervises the practice of individuals licensed as an early childhood educator, one, and receives guidance from individuals licensed as an early childhood educator, three. I know that the question is going to come up, what's the difference between guidance and supervision? You'll see EC1 has supervision, EC2 has guidance. And so those terms are defined later on. ECE three means an individual who practices early child care education as a lead or primary educator in a program, supervises the practice of individuals licensed as an EC one and provides guidance to individuals licensed as an EC2. And then the fourth license type is the family childcare provider. This means an individual provides developmentally appropriate care, education, protection and supervision of children from birth to eight years of age and is authorized by CBD to operate a family child care home. So important to know that ECE one through three are permanent. The family child care provider endorsement or license is sort of a legacy designation. So as of, I want to say it's January, if somebody is operating as a family childcare provider up to that date, they can get a license as a family childcare provider. If they start practicing as a family childcare provider after that date, that designation would no longer be there and they'd have to come into the program as an ECE one, two or three.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Before we move on from the definitions, get further into them, ECE two and three, at first flush, it's hard to see the difference in those, and they both refer to them as lead or primary educators in the program. Will that be flushed out further?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Different educational requirements or experiential. Page six. Here's guidance means direct or indirect consultative support. I'll just skip to supervision. On-site direct oversight. So that's the distinction between the two. And program means a program regulated by CDD as a licensed or registered family childcare home or center based program. It's not operated by a public school. Prohibitions. An individual shall not hold themselves out as an ECE unless they are licensed under this chapter or exempt. An individual shall not use in connection with their name, letters, words or insignia indicating that they are an ECE unless licensed or exempt. And here are our exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following persons acting within the scope of their respective professional practices: a teacher actively licensed under Title 16 by AOE with endorsements in early childhood education, early childhood special education or elementary education. An individual who provides care in an after school child care program that is regulated by the CDD or another child care program that is exempt from regulation. And an individual who works exclusively in a public school. This chapter shall not be construed to alter or amend the requirements of publicly funded pre K programs that are operated pursuant to the statute that you spent some time looking at a month ago. The chapter is not construed to limit or restrict in any manner the right of a practitioner of another profession or occupation from carrying out in their usual manner the functions incidental to their profession.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Go

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: ahead. Sorry.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: So an individual looking at line 11, an individual who works exclusively in a public school, if they're leading that classroom, I assume they're falling under the license that's referenced up above and won. So do we have an individual who works exclusively? Would that be someone who otherwise would be the equivalent of an ECE one in a private setting?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm trying to figure out who they mean by an individual who works exclusively in a public school. Because it seems like we take care of those who are the lead teachers, I think, by the language of above and minds four through six, a teacher actively licensed to AOE. So what's left?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I would say, as you heard when you were looking at pre K, sometimes there are childcare programs that are also in the school to provide that gap service if there isn't a full day of pre K provided. And if those individuals are only operating within a public school, they would be omitted from licensure under this.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But can I just dig in a little bit on that? So in that setting where a classroom is at the public school and you have a licensed teacher because the UPK requirements require that, but there are other, there are assistant teachers, are teacher's aids in that classroom that are not licensed teachers. So we're saying that we're exempting those additional teachers from the licensure. Is that what you're asking?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah, that's what I'm trying

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: to get at. And ultimately why, that's

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: our fault.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So you're talking about UPK hours though, and I think what I'm referring to is

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: childcare hours. Even in childcare hours, if they're working just at a school. In a school. This is exempting any So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: when we talk to OPR and CDB and AOE understand sort of the intent behind it.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: But I'm just clarifying that that's what Yeah, the sentence yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm not in the moment seeing why we would want to exempt childcare operators who just happen to operate within On schools. On school grounds.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We have childcare, private childcare providers under agreement with public schools that operate in the school. We also have more schools entering into the childcare space as they try to expand public pre K. So it's a bit of a conundrum, but we'll hear from those folks. Good morning, Eric.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good morning, how are you?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm well, how are you doing? I'm doing well, thanks. Okay. So what's your time constraints, Eric? Because I know that Chair Lalonde was wanting you to be down there too, at least a couple of

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: days ago. Oh, you just came from there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Working on the same boat for the last quite long. As I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: said to him, going go

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: back to another committee, it's the same bill. Don't think there's a lot more description.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: How many states work again? So are you okay if we finish the walk through on pre K? Okay. All

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: right. Okay.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This subchapter two, these ellipses, this is where the language would go that we looked at in section two. So that's where that's being plugged in. Top of page eight, this is the licensure requirements. This is where we break down the different licensor types and talk about education and experience. So subsection A applies to everyone regardless of license type. To be eligible a license under this chapter, the applicant has to have attained the age of majority, achieved a high school diploma, a GED certificate, or an approved public credential and completed field experience in early childhood education as required by rule. And then we have specific requirements by license types. ECE one is to have received a certificate from an approved credential program in early childhood education requiring a minimum of one hundred and twenty hours of training and instruction. ECE two

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: is to

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: have an associate's degree in early childhood education or a related field requiring a minimum of 60 college credits, or they could have any unrelated fields and a minimum of 21 approved college credits in the core early childhood education competency areas that will be defined by the board and roles. And then EC3 has a bachelor's degree in early childhood education or related field with a minimum of 120 college credits or any unrelated fields and a minimum of 21 approved college credits in the core early childhood education competency areas. And then we have our family childcare provider. This person is qualified for licensure, authorized, if they're authorized by CDD to operate that family childcare home, they're in good standing as of 01/01/2029. The board shall not accept applications for this licensure type after 01/01/2029. So if somebody is practicing now as a family childcare provider, they can continue to practice that way indefinitely. But if opening a family child care home after that date, they're coming in as an ECE one, two or three. There is some language that we'll look at that says if you leave the practice for a certain period of time and you decide to again come back, that you have to come back as an EC from one, two or three. Approved programs can offer college credit based upon assessment of the individual's competency acquired through experience working in the profession. And additional to the requirements of subsections A and B of this section, applicants shall pass any examination that may be required by rule. License renewal. The licenses are renewed every two years upon an application and payment of a required fee. Failure to comply with the provisions of the section results in suspension of those privileges. A license that has lapsed shall be reinstated upon a payment of the biennial renewal fee and the late renewal penalty, except family child care providers shall not be renewed after a lapse of two years. Subsection B, the board may adopt rules necessary for the protection of the public to assure the board that an applicant whose license has lapsed for more than five years is still professionally qualified to be reinstated. Subsection C. In addition to the provisions up above, an applicant for renewal shall have satisfactorily completed continuing education. The board may, by rule, adopt continuing education for not more than twenty four hours for the renewal period, so two years. Then we have the fees. I'm not gonna read all of this to you, but suffice it to say, you can see it's broken down by license type. Each license type has an application for the initial fee and a biennial fee. And the fee increases as the person's level of education increases. Okay, unprofessional conduct. In this case, means conduct prohibited by Title III in a section specific to OPR misconduct or misconduct by OPR professions or by other statutes relating to early childhood education, whether that conduct is by the licensee applicant or an individual who later becomes an applicant. Unprofessional conduct is conduct that results in the licensee applicant or individual who later becomes an applicant being placed on the Child Protection Registry and conduct that's not in accordance with the standards of the early childhood educators published by NACI. Here are the variances. This seems to be where there is significant interest. So this section is amended again over time, and we'll take a look at that. So first, variance is subdivision A1. The board is to issue a transitional ECE two or three license to a teacher or director of a program who does not meet the educational or experiential requirements. These transitional licenses are to be valid for a two year period and shall be renewed by the board for an otherwise qualified applicant for an additional two year period with satisfactory documentation that they're doing ongoing work to obtain the proper requirements. At the conclusion of three two year periods, the board at its discretion may issue one final two year transitional license. So that's how we get to eight years for that particular transitional license. For an otherwise qualified applicant, the licensee can demonstrate extenuating circumstances for not having attained the requirements. B, new variants. In addition to the one we just looked at, the board shall also issue an ECE two license for individuals who have completed the eligibility requirements set forth in A and D of 6221. So A was age of majority, diploma or GED, D was continuing education requirements. So if the person has completed those and they have either 21 college credits in the core early childhood education competency areas, or they have prior experiential learning that is assessed by an accredited institution to be the equivalent of those 21 college credits, then they are eligible for that variance.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: So it's a variance, not a transitional?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Katie, did you experience? No, no it doesn't.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But these two go away after a certain period of time. So these are temporary. You'll see there's a third one that's going to be added that would be available on an ongoing basis.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I have a question for you. I'm seeing the need already to have some sort of chart. And this may be something that between CDD and OPR, together, maybe what I'll do is ask them. I'm just stating it out loud because I already know in my head that we're going to want to see what's current requirements for people who are working in the field, and then these the requirements and then the transitions and then so so we can kinda compare current to proposed future.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think this chart might exist. Think I was wondering about on the Senate side. Okay. And I think it was OPR who prepared it. I'm wrong. I can't look comment. I'll

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for documents. Okay. All right. Thank you.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Top of page 13, disclosure by licensees. An ECE that's licensed under this chapter is to post information for current and prospective families. So I'll just step back on this one and say, there's a lot of conversation about how would a family know who the regulating entity is? Because if it's pre K, it could be a licensed teacher under Title 16. Or if you have a concern about the program, then we're talking about CDD. Or if you have a concern about the individual childcare provider or ECE, then it's OPR. So this language was developed to require information posted to sort of explain to parents how the regulation, who is responsible for what. So in one, all available license types required, regulated by OPR. Two, description of OPR's regulatory authority and how to make complaints. Three, a description of AOE's regulatory authority over UPK and how to make complaints. Four, description of CDD's regulatory authority and how to make complaints. Okay. Yep.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Question that seems to put

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: the burden, if I'm reading this correctly, on the early childhood educator license pursuing this chapter shall post and provide. So an ECE one, two, or three is personally responsible for posting? It seemed like this would be an obligation we would put on

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: provider.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: A provider.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm. That's a good point. Yeah. The way it's drafted, it it does have the ECE doing it. It was the same thing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. It's relevant for people who are family home care providers.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What's sort of an interesting question is you have a chapter regulating ECEs. So would you want a requirement regulating programs? Everything else about programs is in Title 33. So I'm wondering maybe this would move out of this chapter and move to Title 33 if you're going to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: have the program responsible for it. Well, it would seem that would be the case for the things that are related to CDD and AOE. Somebody's got Yeah, I don't know. We'll have to consider that, but I agree with you. I agree as well. Sure, somebody's gonna tell us it makes sense, but right now on first blush, it does not make sense on first reading.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And it seems like each one would have to.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: To Exactly. Get multiple.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just functionally. I see the concern.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And it's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: complicated. Let's keep moving.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So section four, I told you that we were going to amend this section again. So we're amending this section four invariances at a later date. And what's really happening here is the addition of this new variant subsection C. This would take effect around the same time that the family child care provider license type goes away. So this requires the board to issue a transitional ECE two license to a provider of a family child care home who does not meet the requirements of an ECE two, but does meet the educational experiential license requirements of an ECE one. This transitional license is

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: to

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be valid for a two year period and renewable for two additional two year periods, six years, while the licensee completes ongoing work to obtain the required educational experiential qualifications. So that exists on an ongoing basis around 01/01/2029. We're amending this section a third time, And that is because the first two subsections go away. And I can't recall the date off the top of my head, but we can take a look in the effective date section. Then you have a section five report on licensure that on 11/01/2031, OPR is in consultation with CBB, is submitting a written report to various policy committees addressing number of licensees by license type, state resources necessary to implement the chapter, number and nature of complaints or enforcement actions, qualification required for each license type, any changes in the number of registered and licensed family child care homes, recommendations to engage the opening of an additional family child care home and any other issues the office deems appropriate. Section

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: six.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is the appropriations and the positions. Getting a lot

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of contingency provisions this year.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that is maybe the default coming out of Senate approves.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I know we're not doing a markup, Madam Chair, but if I could just say before we move on, I'm just going to express some concern about the date of 11/01/2031. Seems pretty far out there to get information. Maybe there's a final report then or something. I don't know, but just wanted to verbalize that while I was thinking about it.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We should look at the effective dates because the program itself isn't set up for a couple years out. Doesn't take effect July 1. It still might be too far out for you, but I think we have two or three years before the program is up and running. Okay. So the establishment of a new permanent position, an OPR, an executive officer of the Vermont Board of Early Childhood Educators and then a full time staff attorney. And then in fiscal year twenty seven, an appropriation of 262,000 from the general fund to OPR to set up the program. Here's our contingency funding language. The duty to implement Section six of the Act OPRs, well, that's the title of the Act or of the section, is contingent upon funds from the general fund for that purpose. Then we have our effective dates. So the effective date section itself, section one, which is the list of professional regulations, section two, which is the policy board, section five, which is the report that we just looked at, section six, which is the appropriation of positions, and section 6A, which is the contingency. Those all take effect this year. Section three, that's sort of the heart of the bill with all of the definitions and describing the different licensure requirements. That takes effect 07/01/2028. The new variants, the third variants is added 07/01/2029. And then the first two variances, A and B, to go away on 07/01/2036.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's it. Okay. There's a lot to digest Thank you very much, Katie, for the walkthrough. We start taking testimony on this bill next week, and we have a lineup of folks. As I've said several times here, if you have providers in your regions who want to testify, please let Rey know she's organizing our list of witnesses. So thank you very much. All right, we're gonna move on and invite Eric.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you, Katie.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I'm gonna sit back here,

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: because I'm a little away

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: from my Sounds good. Thanks.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Welcome, Eric. Thank you. So folks, we're now shifting probably about as far afield as we could from early childhood to forensic facility. So we have S-one 193, which has made its way through the Senate and is being carefully reviewed downstairs in judiciary. And I understand you presented an amendment down there just this morning. So we would love to see the most recent version of that, if possible.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Absolutely, and good morning, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here, as the chair said, to talk a little bit with you about S 193, which is an act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons. As chair also said, there's a very, very new amendment that we just walked through in house judiciary downstairs this morning. So that certainly does make the most sense for that to be the version that everybody's looking at here as well. And it is and I was gonna ask noticed when Katie was doing her walkthrough of the previous bill that she had it on the screen. Do you guys generally prefer having-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is helpful to have it on screen.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, thanks. So before we look at the language, it does help. There's a lot of dense legal language in this bill, and it's easy to get lost in the details without kind of remembering what the big picture is here. So the big picture is that this bill creates a forensic facility within the Department of Corrections to oversee and provide treatment to a certain universe of people who are transferred to the facility after having gone through the criminal justice system, which we're going to call forensic, the forensic system related to criminal proceedings, as a result of being found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty of a criminal offense for reason of insanity. So that's the avenue of people that are coming to this facility for treatment under S-one 193. So it helps for a minute to think, well, how are those folks treated now? Because those cases happen now, right? You have not guilty by reason of insanity cases. You have lack of competency to stand trial cases. And there is a current statutory system in place for those folks. The Department of Mental Health is the state entity that oversees those folks now under current law. That would not be displaced by S-one 193. This is a supplement, because the idea is that, because under current law, the folks that go to DMH are persons who are found either not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial, and then the court makes a finding that they're dangerous, that person in need of treatment, phrase that this committee has seen many times. Court has defined that, so that means dangerous to themselves or others as a result of a mental illness. Leaves There are a number of gaps left in that, in theory, in practice, it's not gonna we have to DOC is gonna have talk about how this would work, but the idea is that some

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of those gaps are filled by the forensic facility operated by DOC. And Eric, just to be clear, so you're probably doing the same presentation next door in the healthcare committee. So we are concerned of course with the whole thing, but our primary level of interest and jurisdiction is on people with developmental or intellectual disabilities. So folks who are found incompetent to stand trial and have heretofore been committed under Act two forty eight to the custody of the commissioner of Dale. That's right. So that's the group of people who we kind of are narrowly focusing

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Could I jump in Also the administration has said that individuals who have a substance use disorder could potentially so Or brain injury or dementia as well. Yes, I just, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So those folks fall under our jurisdiction. Folks with mental health challenges, mental illness fall under the healthcare committee's jurisdiction. And I honestly, I don't know what their plans are about reviewing this bill, but we take very active interest in forensic services, particularly for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, because there has been over the course of many decades now, community based services for those individuals that's been provided by designated specialized service agencies. So this would be a major policy shift for that group, which is, I will say a bit different than folks with mental illness where that sort of comprehensive level of service has not been provided on the community side. They've been more kind of discharged to the community and some not very nice things have happened for sure. That has not been the case for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, because there seems to be a higher standard for services for that group of people. So I wanted the committee to understand that we are gonna focus in narrowly on both people who are currently impacted in Act two forty eight, and then the potential for people with substance use disorder, people with dementia, people with brain injury, that also fall under the purview of EDH and Dale.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, and those groups, at least with respect to substance abuse disorder, for example, dementia, that kind of thing, would certainly be described by at least by the image as part of this gap that would be covered by this bill. The interesting question, which I don't know, I'm sure you want to pose to the Dale Commissioner, as to whether or not their view is that the provisions of this bill would override any of their current programs, their programmatic approach to people that are coming into their custody as a result of a not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetency to stand trial, will this be because with respect to having spoken with general counsel of BMH about how this proposal fits into gaps that aren't currently covered, their take is that the people that will come into their custody now, this proposal doesn't override any of their treatment. It only would be how they might be treated under different facts. So in other words, let's say, for example, a person doesn't need a hospitalization level of care anymore, then this bill would kick in. Whereas right now, there isn't anything in that situation.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And for the people under Dale or BDH that really don't have any current statute that governs them. So there is really no current programming that it supersedes. So I think that we have to understand that while people with DD or intellectual disabilities have a current set of services that theoretically this would not supersede, but that other group of individuals for which there is existing gaps, both in the criminal justice system, but also in the service stuff, there is nothing in terms of expectation. So those folks don't currently get The court doesn't determine that they can be placed in anybody's custody if that's their main issue because there's there's no judicial way to do it. And in previous presentations to joint justice oversight, the department, I think at that time being represented by attorney Shore, has said that the department lacked the resources to do that. And so we'll be anxious to hear from the department about what has changed in their perspective of that. So Right. Okay. So, Senator Gulick, thank you. We're running a little behind schedule. And we did have the walkthrough of the bill already on S two forty three from Katie. And we, at 11:00, are gonna be starting to take testimony. Would you be able to come back at eleven or not? The only issue is that my chair is out sick today. Oh, she's okay. She's running. We'll loop back with you about that. Okay? All right. Thank

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you. So continuing on the topic of who it is that would be covered, you can see if you're looking at the very first page of the S-one 193 draft that currently is, is that it actually starts off with a very narrow group of people who would be covered by this in the first place. You see the criteria are on page one. And actually, let me back up a second. As I mentioned, it applies to people who are found either not guilty by reasonable standing or are incompetent to stand trial. Those are two different things. They have to deal with the defendant's mind state and in their mental health situation at a different stage in the criminal proceedings. So if you're talking about the question of competency to stand trial, that is the defendant's mental health condition at the time of the trial. At the time of the trial, are they able to understand the nature of the charges against them? And are they able to participate meaningfully in their own defense? That's your standard. That's your general competency standard. Understand the charges against you, participate meaningfully in your own defense. And the question is, right then, during the trial, that's when that question matters. It doesn't have anything to do with what your mental health condition was at the time you committed the offense. You could have been perfectly competent at that time. But the question is, are you competent when the trial is about to begin or at the criminal proceeding stage? Now, if someone has found back up for a second. So not guilty, but reason with Sandy, on the other hand, has to do with the defendant's mental health condition at the time of the offense, the time they committed the criminal conduct. They either couldn't understand that their conduct was criminal or they couldn't conform their conduct to the to the requirements of the law. So in other words, even if they did understand that was criminal, they lacked the ability to act in a lawful way. That's the test of insanity at the time of criminal defense of insanity. The difference legally, and that's why it's a sort of segue into why you're looking at two different portions of this bill, is that a not guilty by reason of insanity defense is a complete defense. If that happens, criminal case is done. You can never be charged that person again. It's defense because you never had the right, the legally necessary mental state to commit the crime. You never did. So you can't ever be charged with it. It's a complete defense. On the other hand, competency to stay on trial, competency, it's a fluid thing with respect to, you know, it changes. A person can be competent at one point, not competent at another. And that is not a complete defense. That is something that can be retained, sorry, restored. So the focus of these two different groups of people in the BILD is different. Competency, which is the first one we're going to look at, you'll see the very title of that section is competency restoration services within forensic facility. So when that person goes to the forensic facility, the idea is they're getting treatment with the goal of restoring their competency so then they can go back to the criminal court and have their trial. That's the idea. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I haven't read through this version. Is there anything that recognizes the fact that is a person with a developmental disability has a lifelong disability? It's different than a person, can't, through medication or other treatment, you can't restore them to not having a developmental disability. So if they were determined incompetent to stand trial on account of their developmental disability, Is there anything in the language that is being proposed that frankly understands that condition? That you don't restore competency to somebody who has a lifelong disability that you can't medicate your way out of, you can't provide enough therapy or anything else that you're gonna have a lifelong disability? I would say from the perspective of judicial proceedings, answer is yes.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because the bill provides an avenue where if the court finds that you're not restorable and not dangerous, then you get released.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, but what if you're not restorable and you may be dangerous?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Then if the court finds that, then you are held for continued treatment. The dangerousness is the key. You're either dangerousness or not. If you're not restorable, court has all the hearing on that restorability. And at that hearing, they have a forensic risk assessment that's done. The forensic risk assessment provides information about the person's condition, about their dangerousness, and then the court has to make a decision. The state's attorney carry their burden? The burden is on the state to show that by clear and convincing evidence, which is a very high evidentiary threshold, that the person suffers from a condition that would cause a substantial risk of harm to somebody else if they're released. If they can meet that burden, then they are held for treatment. And there's specifics about the treatment. It doesn't mean you'll see the language. This is in the amendment that was just talked about. It doesn't necessarily have to be at the facility. They're held for treatment, but it could be at least restricted means, the term that's used, so that it might be that community treatment would be appropriate depending on their level of dangerousness. But if they find that the person is not restorable and not dangerous, in other words, the state didn't meet their burden of proving that, then they get released on conditions. So that's the whether that goes far enough to address that situation is a policy decision for you guys, but I think that's sort of the structural approach that bill takes. Okay. So in a way, that kind of gets me through the walkthrough of the first thing. So I wanna ask you sort of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a very specific question about this section here that we're talking about right now. So can you tell us what are the offenses punishable by a life sentence? What specifically are those?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, there are about if I can find my list, there's about, depending on whether you count second offense and L with a child and third offense L and L with a child, that's the same offense or different, generally between ten and fifteen is the number that you're talking about. And I do have a list here. Okay, here we are. Arson causing death, first degree murder, second degree murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping, L and with a child second, L and L with a child third, human trafficking, aggravated human trafficking, maiming, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault victim less than 10 years old, aggravated sexual assault, treason, and non compliant high risk sex offender, not compliant with their conditions. But between 10 and 15, I think is the number.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so that's the first condition.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh yeah, life events, right, exactly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the second is that they either been held without bail, and I don't know what the section is referring to yet, but And if they're not held without bail, that they have a qualifying condition and would create a substantial risk Now, to other that substantial risk by clear and convincing evidence? That's the court's gonna have to find. That's so when you were referring to that, okay. That they're not currently receiving treatment. I'm unclear about why this is only referencing mental health statute.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That the I could be wrong on this, but at least four thousand eight hundred twenty two. I didn't

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: know No, it might be 4,822. The order of hospitalization doesn't pertain to people with developmental disabilities. I'm just trying to Is there a comparable thing? Order I don't know what $4,008.22 is.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's the criminal I can move the phone. Hold on. It's not actually my phone.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And they've been down Not confidential. Service.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Do you guys get service up here?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: The internet has happened.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not been great. I've had problems, it might just be me. So, it is, I guess on first blush, some might say it's a pretty high threshold for somebody to be remanded to a forensic facility. Relatively narrow class of cases, the way it's currently tracked. Right. So we'll hear from AHS obviously about how many that is, in particular for people with developmental disabilities and brain injury, SUD.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: qualifying condition defined in place as persons suffering from a

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: qualified Yeah, that is. And that the idea with that is that it's not just because remember I mentioned, under the current statutory framework, the person has to be found either in order to be transferred to custody DMH or jail custody, it has to be a that you've been found not guilty by reason of insanity or a common death syndrome as a result of either a mental illness or a disability. So qualifying condition is intentionally broader than that. It could be any reason really to try to find the definition here. So it happens to be on page 14. Qualifying condition means any condition, whether mental, congenital or traumatic, however acquired or developed, or any other circumstance that resulted in the person being determined incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. So intentionally broader than mental illness or developmental disability. Yeah, it's definitely broader.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: To answer your question on 4,822, that is linking to the criminal statute about transferring a mentally ill person to the Commissioner of Corrections. There's corresponding 4823 specific to individuals with intellectual disability, and that was first adopted in Act 48. So,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: guess the question is why that's not referenced in number three. Maybe, this question hasn't come up, very good question, but maybe it could be a question for Dale or somebody at HS. But the question would be, what's that intention? Maybe those folks are not intended to be subject to this, I don't know. But if the intent is to subject, that they would be subject to this, then I think, as Katie mentioned, you'd wanna cross reference 4823 as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, all right, well, we'll bring that up when we pass Yes,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I put it. It's a relevant question. So then you see the last criteria that have been found not competent to stand trial. So this is the competency piece that gets you to the French facility.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Usually, I'm trying to envision So this is The way this is laid out, there's the Oh, no, it's not, because the first thing is being held without bail. So never mind. I answered my own question. I was going to ask, well, what about people who initiated a court process? The court process doesn't all happen quickly, necessarily. And so there are some people who are remanded to the Dale commissioner currently. And currently, there's only provisions for that for people with DD. So they could be in a community based program as this court process continues to find its way through. So, all right. We have a lot of questions.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's a very Like I said in the very beginning, this is a very dense prop. There's a lot to it. Very It's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: significant change in policy for people served by Dale. And so we have our sign up here because Representative Donahue is definitely here in spirit, and we want to make sure we ask all the right questions. And she would be pursuing this bill all throughout all of the committees, I will say. We don't we're not gonna be able to do that, but I appreciate the time and attention. And it sounds like the major thrust of the amendment as was prepared is when it came from the Senate, it didn't really have provisions for periodic reviews of a person being held. And it seems as though that now is in this amendment. I'd say

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it's expanded. There was a provision. If you look at page two lines, say, one through

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: eight ish, that Oh, it's in six months, yeah. Yeah, so it did have

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that initial six month review. But, and I should point out here that entire type of process that we're discussing here has constitutional limitations. There are boundaries out there because you're talking about basically taking away someone's liberty against their will. So that is that implicates the due process clause, which says someone's liberty can't be taken away by the state without due process. So doesn't mean you can't do it, means there has to be sufficient process. And the court has said specifically with the supreme court, I mean, US supreme court, with respect to a case called Jackson v Indiana, that when it comes to committing someone who's been found incompetent to stand trial, that is permissible, but without some finding of dangerousness, and even perhaps even if there is, that part's a little less clear, it can't go on forever. There has to be without some periodic review so that the person has an opportunity to show they're not dangerous, so they should be released. See what I mean? So that that all this new language is an attempt to yes. That's that initial six that six month review was in the senate bill, but this is an attempt to to expand that permit potential for the person to get a judicial review of their commitment on a regular basis, especially if they're not dangerous so that there is a better argument for any constitutional challenge, which as I said this morning to the senate sorry, to the House Judiciary Committee, will come. It's not might this be challenged constitutionally. Well, 100% that will happen. Because we don't have this in Vermont right now. And so at least under the Vermont constitution, these sorts of things had never been challenged. So if you're a defense attorney, you're gonna challenge. And the US Supreme Court has said, but it's you know, there are strict, as I said, boundaries on what can be done. So if you're counsel representing someone who is committed pursuant to this, of course, would bring that kind of challenge. And so the attempt is to make the language as strong as possible. I think, obviously, that's good policy as well as anticipating what could happen later on for litigation. So anyway, that's what all the highlights, which you'll see is quite a bit for the next couple of pages. So let me describe real quick before we get lost in the language. Remember, we just said, all right, so the person gets committed there, then they're, and they get evaluated six months later. So you remember, they've already been found incompetent, right? That's how they got there at the first place. So six months later, they have to have another evaluation, a reevaluation. Are they still incompetent, or are they now competent to stand trial? If they're still incompetent, then they continue with what's known as competency restoration services. So they stay there. They keep getting treatment for competency restoration. If the court says, hey, wait, actually, they are competent now, well, then that's lines ten and eleven. Then the court says they'd let the state's attorney and the person's counsel know because if they're competent now, now they're probably gonna restart the criminal case. That make sense? So you're at that point. So but then the question is, alright. Well, as I said, you have this sort of constitutional rule that the person can't be held there indefinitely. So how are you gonna if you think about that cycle, because the court said you can hold them for as long as it takes to for them to be restored, but after that, it can't be forever. So you have the next step is gonna be someone can ask at any time for an opinion as to whether or not the competency of the person is restored. This kinda gets at your question earlier on about restorability. And the court said, alright.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So if that happens, the court says, alright.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're gonna have that evaluation to specifically address restorability. That's bottom of page two now. So we're at this point, that stage of thing of the proceeding. Someone asked for restorability, and now the court says, alright. Let's look at that. We'll run to page three. What happens then? Well, the court subdivision two there, line three, page three, if the court finds out, hey. Actually, the person's competency is restorable, can be restored, well, then the person keeps going through treatment. Because at that point, the court's saying, well, actually, treatment could actually restore the person's competency. But what if the court says they're not restorable? This we're getting even closer to the fact pattern you asked about earlier. Court says we're not restorable, then, and this is line six through eight, page three, the court has to hold a hearing within sixty days. And that's the hearing where they're talking about dangerousness. You're gonna have to make a dangerousness finding at that hearing because they've already decided they're not restorable. But if they're not restorable, they're not dangerous, we can't hold the person. So they have to decide whether or not they're dangerous. So court, prior to that hearing, they have to have a forensic risk assessment, talk about their history and present dangerousness. I'm on page three. Any tests that were employed, examiner's findings, fifteen and sixteen, and this is important, examiner's opinion as to whether the person's release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person, because that's your public safety component of the determination of the recommendation from forensic assessment.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do we talk anywhere in here about the qualifications of the examiner?

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That's

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a good question. No? Yeah, there's one problem. All right, there we go.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not with your drafting.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I understand all criticisms don't don't have to do with the weight of language. Yeah. That's right. I appreciate that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is what the policy has currently Right. Is currently laid out. Yep. Of course.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so lastly, that risk assessment also have an opinion about whether the person's competent to stand trial or not. Results of all the evaluations are given to everybody, the court, defense counsel, prosecutor, etcetera. We're going to page four now. And then we get to the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: point where, alright, so the court's got

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to decide, is this person dangerous or not? This non restorable person. First scenario, page four, court says, part remember, this is the burdens on the state's attorney. That's top of page four. State's attorney has to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a qualifying condition, and that upon the release, that qualifying condition would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. If that if the state's attorney carries the burden, court finds that line five and six of page four, court shall order continued commitment of the person consistent with the person's forensic risk assessment. So it's got to be what that risk assessment was about, what their needs were, what their conditions are, what their risk is, that sort of thing. And then that last sentence, and this also kind of goes to something that had been alluded to earlier, the court shall order treatment of the person in the least restrictive setting, consistent with the person's forensic risk assessment and treatment needs. So that may be the facility. It may not be going to depend upon what the risk assessment says about how dangerous the person is, really. So if they do order continued treatment, you'll see that it goes down a little bit on page four, you're in a different category now, because you're not restorable and in that initial six months. So now it's not every six months anymore. Now it's every year. Now it's an annual. The court has found that you're non restorable and you're dangerous, then the reassessment period is a little bit longer, one year instead of six months.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: This may be more a question for the chair to try to understand this, it consistently talks about treatment. And if someone has developmental disability and there isn't treatment, it's unclear to me what happens here in this competency arena.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Precisely. I'm sure that. That's the, so this is just something that, I'm trying to edit myself, I'm just trying to be fair. But policy around this whole topic has continually failed to recognize the differences really between mental illness and other disabilities. Now those disabilities are broader than just developmental disabilities. And that is why we're gonna take possession of the bill, because it does when judiciary is done with it, because it needs to, they're not the same, it's not the same process. It's not the same considerations. And so it needs to be. So for instance, a very sort of clear cut one, there would be differences in the evaluator who would be a qualified evaluator for somebody with a mental health condition versus somebody with frankly, a developmental disability or a brain injury or substance use disorder or dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Those are gonna have different qualifying evaluators. And that's not addressed in the bill at all. So there's some work to do on it. And it's still being, I don't know, I haven't talked to Chair LeBlanc about what his plan for voting it out of committee is yet. And we need to coordinate this with Chair Black as well. So there'll be a, we'll be seeing more of you, Eric. Also

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: with- Corrections. Corrections institutions, right? They're also at strong Yeah, this is,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and so we have to do a little bit of discussion with the speaker's office about which route should this go, who's gonna take possession versus doing flyovers. I think we're gonna have some specific amendments that we wanna make. And so it requires some logistical scheduling and maneuvering on the logistics, yeah, it raises a number of issues for people with disabilities. All right, did you get through everything you wanted to get through, Eric, or are we still going?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, those are the big picture concepts.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The only thing, last thing, because I said, well, what happens if the

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: person is found dangerous? Remember and I mentioned this before, but language wise, remember, if the person's not found dangerous, if they're can't be restored and they're not found dangerous, that's bottom of page four subdivision five. That's the case. States attorney can't demonstrate. That's when they get released. And that turns over to page five, court has to release the person under treatment plan, supervision, that kind of thing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's the I sort of alluded to that earlier with that

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: picture description. That just aligns, it does that. And so for committee members,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: well, know representative Donahue would be tagging this whole bill. In our committee, we're going to focus most on the competency side of things, incompetent to stand trial. So and what happens?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So in the big picture, I'll just do just to finish up the competency piece. Yeah. So the next sections, bottom page, I will go on to page six, basically saying while the person's at the facility, they get competency reservation services, and then describes what those services might be. Over on page six, there could be at the forensic facility or, someplace else, but the person, is discharged. Subsection f, page six, the commissioner, this is a procedure for if the person does get released, then the commissioner monitors their compliance with their condition so they could conceivably get brought back in if they then it looks like they have become violent. So it looks like there's a threat of violence again, that the person can be brought back into the facility. Same court hearing is required, or similar court hearing, same type of finding. State's attorney has to show that they would be dangerous and are suffering from a qualifying condition. There's a provision and I'll refer to Katie on this, this page seven, line six, the specific provision about the involuntary medication, so that if a person's gonna be, if their treatment's gonna involve involuntary medication, then there has to be court approval for that first. And there's some prerequisites, a standard for that that's on page seven that came from a US Supreme Court case. The committee wants to hear more about that, I think Katie could talk, she all drafted that language on the basis of the case, if you're interested.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So in statute around mental health, there are orders of involuntary medication that, it's a court order. Part of it depends on the person's competency not to be able to make a decision about their medical care. This is a different standard. So this language is almost lifted directly from the US Supreme Court case that allows voluntary medication for competency restoration specifically if these criteria are met. So it's medically appropriate, serves an important governmental interest to bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime and ensuring a fair time and prosecution. Significantly furthers these important governmental interests by making it substantially likely to render the defendant competent and any alternative less intrusive treatments are likely to achieve the same results.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Next section, I'm really gonna skip because that's really a very specific criminal procedure piece that's actually unrelated to the proposal. Just allows the dismissal of certain cases when a person has been done incompetent and the case has remained inactive for a number of years. Separate issue. Section three then, this section deals with the not guilty by reason of insanity population. I don't know if you want to Let's talk about go over that. Alright. So that brings us to page 13. Very, very broad. It's really just starts from there. The definitions and some general provisions defines the forensic facility as a lock facility replacement that is run by the Department of Corrections for secure evaluation, treatment and care of persons involved in the legal system who do not require hospitalization level of care, and is required for their custody, control and treatment of those persons. Qualifying condition, already talked about. There's a provision that the evaluations can be conducted pursuant to contract that's entered into between the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services and evaluation providers. That's there because we were told by Department of Mental Health that they that's the way things are done. BGS handles these contracts. Again, just general provisions about what has to be done at the forensic facility. So now we're kinda transitioning to what takes place at the facility. I was talking about how you get there and the court procedure. This next piece of the bill, which is about what happens when you're there, gonna I'm turn it over to Katie at that point, because this is the piece that she is the attorney's working on. It's part of page 14, sorry. Yeah, thank

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you. So just to tell you a little bit about process, Senate judiciary had this bill downstairs, and as they were working on it, Senate health and welfare didn't take custody of the bill, but they worked not in unison, but collaboratively with Senate institutions to put together a lot of the language that's been integrated here. So again, this directs the Commissioner of Corrections to operate a locked facility for individuals either were ordered for competency restoration or not guilty by reason of insanity. And then we have a list of more clinical aspects of what the forensic facility would contain. So it would be designed and operated in a manner that supports a therapeutic recovery oriented trauma informed environment comparable to a community based residential treatment setting while maintaining appropriate levels of safety and security. Okay, I'm sorry,

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: that just I was anticipated.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's something to say. I couldn't hold that in, sorry.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Tradition two, will not refuse any persons that is ordered to admit and shall not require any clinical or diagnostic prerequisites for admission. Provide for the safe housing and management of persons, including the ability to separate the population by sex or gender into otherwise dress clinically, clinical safety operational considerations if appropriate, including the possible operation of multiple facilities. Employ a clinical service director to oversee all of these branded clinical competency restoration services. Subdivision five, implementing staff qualifications, licensure, training, supervision, ensuring sufficient to ensure that persons transferred to the forensic facility have access to clinically appropriate care, treatment, services.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Don't wanna help you.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's okay. That's alright. Ensure that a registered nurse or a physician is available to provide care 20 fourseven. Subdivision seven, ensuring that persons who are receiving clinically appropriate assessment and clinical training, including the development of an initial specific person specific treatment plan within seventy two hours of transfer to the forensic facility, which shall be reviewed periodically as clinically indicated. Oh, this is language that if you wrote, that's okay, can go over it. Records related to a person placed at the forensic facility are exempt from the Public Records Act. Subsection D, the person admitted and maintained a forensic facility. And in proceedings under either the not guilty or the not competent to stand in trial sections are entitled to have counsel from Vermont Legal Aid. The commissioner is to regularly consult with the commissioner of mental health. And when performing the duties required by this chapter for operating this facility.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it was pausing, I don't know why it just says mental health, but go

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: ahead. Yeah, I'm just wondering if we could go back up to line six where it says the ability to separate the population by sex or gender. I'm just wondering if that language needs to be a little stronger, and maybe it doesn't. I'm not good at legalese, where it would be the person's choice on how they might be segregated, gender versus sex. Maybe that's And getting to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that's not even the only thing that you

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: have Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was just

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, no, there's a lot. They don't Yeah. Okay. We'll get to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it later. We're gonna see birthday. We will get to it later.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Yeah.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll keep going.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'll just highlight your Hold

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on to it.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Do you mind if There I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a was recent issue around that in the correctional system. I may be thinking of the same thing.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. I think we

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: just went over on page 16, I could see that any records related to a person shall be exempt from public inspection. Just flagging that mostly, don't think I quite understand why. Maybe that's a legislative aspect, I don't know legally how that is allowed as well, but I guess that's just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: don't know if it's a It's public health basically making It's a

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: carve out. It's an exemption to the public record. I see. But you can do it or you cannot it. You don't have to do that. But it's just that was the policy they proposed, was to have those sorts of records. Do

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: we have that much liberty or do we run into federal HIPAA issues?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, was gonna say there's a HIPAA overlay there. So if there are medical documents,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: these are protected. So we'll look at that. I think that's there to protect the individual. We're just

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: gonna make sure they can have access in there, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's division one.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Oh, to them.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: So we will look at the balance of, of course, HIPAA, we don't touch, obviously, that's separate, but this is an extension, and what does that serve, and what are the consequences of that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Keep going, Katie.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This section 4A amends the section that we just looked at at our later date to add an annual reporting requirement after there is actually a forensic facility up and running. Reporting is the number of persons served in the previous calendar year in terms of clinical services and treatment provided. Rule making. This directs the Commissioner of Corrections to consult with three other commissioners and AHS to adopt rules to implement the forensic facility. The rules have to establish clinically appropriate standards governing the provisions of services at a forensic facility, including requirements related to staffing patterns, staff ratios, staff qualifications, licensure and training, clinical supervision, of safe, effective measures of care. The rules have to address standards for quality assurance and improvement, clinical oversight, documentation and reporting requirements, safety risk management protocols, mechanisms for monitoring and compliance, any other provisions to ensure safe, effective, clinically appropriate amplification of the Act, including potentially requiring the provision of forensic facility services in a unit that is separate from the other correctional population. So as you have probably realized at this point, there's no direction to establish a forensic facility in a particular location. So this leaves it open, that it would at least be something for those commissioners to address in rural the possibility of not having this population, not having the frenzy facility within the walls of a correctional facility, but having, I don't know, a separate building on the grounds of corrections or elsewhere.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think we necessarily Yeah, we don't need

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this. To talk

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let's actually do look at effective dates though, because I think

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that's a relevant I also wanna flag for you, section seven is an interim report and you might be curious about amending what information should be coming back to you sooner rather than later.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Just a second. Okay, go ahead.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Effective dates? Yeah. Okay. So the effective dates section itself in two, which is a section I don't think you're particularly interested in about misdemeanors, and the rulemaking section and the interim report, those all take effect with here. I'm gonna skip down to see the actual procedures that allow for transfer to a forensic facility take effect 01/01/2028. And the addition of the annual reporting takes effect 07/01/2029, a year after people have been, after there has been a pass to

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: a forensic facility. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Maguire.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, thank you. Just a couple of things. Helped me just to get some clarification and some understanding because what I'm reading is very, very concerning mainly in regards to the governance. So as this bill is drafted, the Department of Corrections, they're the sole agency and legal authority to establish, operate, and govern the secure forensics facility?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: All right. Also within the provisions of this bill, they asked to consult with mental health and other agencies. But who's got the binding decision making authority? Is DOC free to proceed regardless of their input?

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: With regards to what the rulemaking or There As

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: you as it was just mentioned, they are the governing authority of the forensics facility. Mhmm. Therefore, do are they also free to move and and make decisions without that input? There's no dual governance.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's not total governance. Okay. The the authority for operating the forensic facility falls to the commissioner of corrections.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: To the commissioner of corrections. Yeah. Alright. Therefore, also the clinical service is director as outlined would institutionally answer to the commissioner of of corrections rather than any of the other health systems. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: also When you say health systems, you also meaning WellPath or whatever contractor for health services? Yeah. Because I heard, and I don't know, this seems to make it sound like that position, that clinical position is employed by DOC,

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I know if that's it seems to be made. So they're the true governing. So there is absolutely no custodial authority separation from clinical authority and oversight. A forensics facility, that's why it's noted, this is a very concerning, a slippery slope model in regards to full your department of corrections, complete governance and oversight. Because again, you don't have the custodial authority separation from the clinical authority separation as required with forensics facility. And frankly, that governance reads to me more of a this is a public safety detention framework than it is a a forensic. Or it's a forensics overlay with like treatment sacking. I'm not trying to knock the system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm trying hear

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you. I'm behind.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: This is very, very, and I'm speaking from the literature, from the experience, the Department of Corrections the sole agency responsible, it's not practical. That it needs to have dual governance between the Department of Health and the Department of Corrections. And also placing it with inside of a facility. Did anybody look at the constitutional risks behind this?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That general structure has been upheld generally. That it looks like some states, some states do have a placement that sort of, when you say within, did you mean physically like a building?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, again, I go back to the main fundamental thing that separates a forensics unit with your conventional detention things. There is a recognition that the Department of Health governs the clinical authority, your Department of Corrections governs your security mechanisms. It is not the mission of any Department of Correction to provide treatment. That's not their mission, a treatment provider. We're just asking

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Competency restoration.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Exactly. That is not correctional systems' sort of practice. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we're gonna have these conversations.

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: I didn't mean

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: to go on the tirade, but I was like, hey, now you guys get going on stuff, but frankly

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: won't be, Yeah. It's a it's a yeah. We've maybe got a little bit of a different flavor in this committee than it came with. I don't think that's

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not the first time that concern has been raised. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we obviously have a we've got traffic control. We're gonna have to take a lot of witnesses on this, and we'll we're obviously gonna revisit it in the near future. But thank you to both of you for being here

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: thank you, Katie, for sticking with us all morning. We've enjoyed having you. I hope you feel better.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Any other questions? Let us know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, we're good for now. We're running a little behind time. So thank you very much, Eric. I know you've been putting in a lot of work on this bill over its course of moving from the Senate up here and beyond. Yes, interesting subject.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I heard the committee say, regardless of all your policy concerns, it was well written. Yes,

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Exactly what we said. That's all we cared about. Policy. Thank you. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We are now moving to a totally different subject. We're moving to S-two 43, which is on the Language Justice Project. This, frankly, is something I didn't know anything about and I'm very interested in learning about. So we're going to undertake this. So

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm going

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to look to my vice chair who has been arranging this testimony. Are there time constraints for since we're running fifteen minutes behind, I'm just wondering if there's time constraints for anybody.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I don't know if there's time constraints. We can ask the witnesses, but I think that it would make sense for Alison to go first to give us, if the timing works with other, because she runs the project and she can

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: give us an overview of what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they do and help understand why it's important. Okay. Thank you. And just before we do that, because most of the people here have not been in our committee before, I'm just going to do a quick round of introductions also so you know who else is in the room. My name is Theresa Wood. I'm from Waterbury, and I also serve Bolton Buellscore in Huntington. I'm Brenda Steady Garofano.

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I live in Brooklyn, so represent Essex Junction.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Hey, I'm Jubilee McGill, and I represent Brickport Middlebury, New Haven.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: There. I'm Esme Cole. I represent Hartford.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Hello. My name is Zon Eastes. I live in Guildford. I also represent Vernon. Good morning.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm Doug Bishop, and I am a representative from Colchester. Hi, Eric Maguire, representative for Robin City.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Then we go all way around the outside.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Everyone, I'm mayor of Montmorency, and

[Katie McLellan, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm with Action Schools.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm Meg McCarthy with the Department of Health. Jessica Chittenden, Policy Director, Department of Yeah, Mainline, Ms. Amidia Steady

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Garofano. Thank

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you. Okay, Thank you very much, Alison. And as the witnesses come up, can introduce yourselves for the record. And we appreciate you being here and filling us in on what this project does. We can't hear you, Alison. Alison, you're muted.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: There we go. There we go. Thanks for having me, and thanks for all you guys do. I appreciate it. My name is Alison Seeger, and I am the founder and director of the Vermont Language Justice Project. And I'm here today to ask you to please pass to S243 to ensure that the Vermont Department of Health is prepared to reach everyone in Vermont, regardless of the language they speak or their ability to hear, with critical information in the event of a disease outbreak or other health emergency. So I launched the Vermont Language Justice Project six years ago in response to the COVID pandemic when it became very clear that emergency communication and accurate health information wasn't reaching communities with people at communities of people with language access needs, which as we all know are some of the most vulnerable and most isolated people in Vermont. Vermont has a history of welcoming newcomers to the state as refugees, immigrants, migrants, and asylees. And this diverse group of individuals and families speak a multitude of languages. Some are written and some are not. VLJP produced videos on all aspects of COVID on a shoestring budget using accurate and scientific facts sought from the Vermont Department of Health website, the Vermont Commissioner of Health Doctor. Mark Levine, and the CDC. In November 2021, we were really excited to receive a CDC racial disparities grant through the Vermont Department of Health and I began to develop a small team over the next few years so that VLJP could continue to produce and expand on our life saving health information in video format in collaboration with community partners in the Vermont Department of Health. This included a multitude of videos about COVID and COVID testing, videos about vaccinations, their importance and how they work, videos on m pox preventing mosquito bites, videos about keeping your safe during yourself safe during flooding in hot weather, in cold weather, cyanobacteria, wildfires, ticks, and so many more. All these videos are made in anywhere from 10 to 21 languages, spoken commonly in Vermont and made in collaboration with the Vermont Department of Health. We've also worked with other state departments as well as community partners and UVMMC, Brattleboro Hospital and the Vermont Cancer Center. We've produced videos on mental health concerns, Know Your Rights with ICE and the Border Patrol, video on autism, latent TB, maternal child health, maternal child health warning signs, mammograms, contraception, drugs and alcohol concerns, accessing and paying for childcare in Vermont, cervical cancer, climate change, the ER, and so many more. In total, we've produced over two and fifty unique videos, each one in up to 21 languages. And we have had over 440,000 views. We have over 2,761 subscribers to our YouTube channel, and we've also developed an app for iPhones and Androids where all our videos can be accessed in 18 of our languages, including ASL. Now since our grant from the CDC ended abruptly very abruptly, in January 2025, the LJP is now solely funded by donations from individuals and foundations and fee for service work. And we have not made a single video in collaboration with the Department of Health since that time. On 10/30/2025 last year, we were asked to support Hunger Free Vermont in their outreach to Vermonters with language access needs to create a video explaining the details of the impending cuts to SNAP benefits that would occur two days later on November 1. Within thirty six hours, VLJP had produced 17 informational videos in 17 languages about the cuts to SNAP benefits and how the state of Vermont was going to provide the benefits for the first fifteen days of November. The playlist was immediately put out on social media and within the day had received over 4,000 hits. The same day the playlist was sent to the our task force colleagues over 80 organizations, and the audio files were sent to the Winooski and Burlington School District for distribution through their robocall system. By the end of the weekend, our videos had been viewed over 500 times. In cases of emergency, we are able to respond to a crisis usually within twenty four hours with information in multiple languages, in multiple formats, translations, audio files, and videos. We use our wide distribution network to push the information out to people with language access needs throughout the entire state of Vermont. So this is where I boast a little bit and I say I know that I can say that no other organizations can do this in Vermont and maybe no other organizations can do this or do do this in The United States. We've been recently working with the Minnesota Department of Public Health on some videos for them. And as an aside, it's really important that you know we don't use AI, but we work with community leaders who understand the nuances of what we are saying and have wide access to their communities. A week ago, I came across an artist from the Department of Health about a travel warning for people attending the Hajj in Saudi Arabia in May. It talked about the importance of getting a I always say this word wrong, meningococcal vaccine before travel, about how to find a travel clinic in your area and what to do if on return you develop fever, headaches, stiff neck, nausea, or vomiting during or after travel. At VLGP, we felt it was important that this notice be made into a video with or without the financial help of the Vermont Department of Health in both Arabic and English. Arabic translator agreed to do the video for free and the video was made within twenty four hours and uploaded to our YouTube channel last Friday night in both Arabic and English and shared with communities throughout Vermont. We don't know what health issues are going to be hitting our communities in the next year. However, we do know that there have already been seventeen fourteen confirmed cases of measles in The US since January, which is over seventy five percent of all cases last year in 2025. It is that time of year that many of us are remembering the beginning of COVID and how terrifying it was and how we had to search out scientifically accurate information so we could keep ourselves and our families safe. We have really appreciated and thanked senator Golrang for introducing s two forty three, which proposes to require the Department of Health to distribute funds to the Vermont Language Justice Project for the creation of informational materials related to a disease outbreak or other public health emergency with a $150,000 appropriation. The state of Vermont needs to be not only prepared for the next health emergency, but be proactive to prevent emergencies from happening, whether that is through vaccinations, behavior, and lifestyle changes, by ensuring that all residents are informed in a manner that is linguistically appropriate. When it comes to health, we know that time can be of the essence. The LJP has already done the extensive groundwork to be ready for whatever comes next. We know that our work saves lives by informing all our communities of diverse language speakers throughout Vermont. So this is why I ask you to please pass S243, to ensure that the Vermont Department of Health is prepared to reach everyone in Vermont, regardless of the languages they speak or their ability to hear with critical information in the event of disease outbreak or other health emergency. Before S243 started in the Senate, I'm sorry, because S243 started in the Senate, the 150,000 appropriation was not included in the House version of the '27 budget. We will be working closely with Senate appropriations to include the funding in the final version of the FY 'twenty seven budget and would greatly appreciate this committee's support in that process. That was long. I have it submitted as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. It was And a great

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: I only ad libbed for five words. So it's an accurate reflection of what I said.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. We do have it on our website and we're able to follow along with you. Thank you for really alerting us to the work that you've been doing, and thank you for doing that work. One of the things that immediately popped into my head as you were talking about health issues was H585, which we passed out of the House and Senate and is now law because it's been signed. And that was about the availability of immunizations in Vermont, despite what's happening at the CDC level and thinking about like, oh, that would have been something that the health department should be coordinating with you all. Get that information out. So thank you. Thank you for doing what you're doing. And in the interest of time, I'm gonna ask that we hold questions for any of our witnesses to the end so that we can make sure to get through all the witnesses who are scheduled to testify today. So yeah, I'm going to move to Anor next, and then we'll talk with Eric, and then we'll talk with the folks from the health department. Anor, the floor is yours.

[Anore Horton, Hunger Free Vermont]: Thank you so much, Chair Wood and members of the committee. I'm Anor Horton. I'm the executive director of Hunger Free Vermont. I did submit a written testimony and in the interest of time, I'm not going to go through all of that. I'm here to speak as a statewide organization that is accountable for carrying out outreach on important food access programs in the state of Vermont. And I'm here to say that since we have started working with the Vermont Language Justice Project and allocating a portion of our SNAP outreach grant funds to work with VLJP to create videos, it has really been transformational for our ability to reach everyone in Vermont with critical information.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And

[Anore Horton, Hunger Free Vermont]: Alison mentioned one of our most recent collaborations with VLJP, which was around the government shutdown in October and November at the federal level, and the crisis that that created around SNAP benefits for people, and how people were afraid they were not going to get their three Scores Vermont benefits issued in November, and how in a very tight turnaround, the state of Vermont stepped in rightly to cover those benefits, and then we needed to get that information out. VLJP is so effective because they work with members of many different communities in Vermont, native speakers who also have ties to those communities and are credible spokespeople. And that's really a huge value add and a brilliant design of how BLJP operates. And the other thing that I want to say here is that if you look at the analytics of who accessed those videos around SNAP benefits and the federal government shutdown, and how many different times different videos were accessed, the video that was accessed most frequently was the English language video. And I think this is really, really important to emphasize. We are done with the world of paper handouts and posters on bulletin boards. COVID ended that world that was already on the demise because of how people use their phones, and use social media to get information. And if we are not getting information to people in video form, on apps, on ways that they actually communicate, then our good intentions as state agencies and as nonprofit organizations like Hunger Free Vermont, our good intentions can be there, but they are not going to make any difference. And so I think that's just another piece I really wanna highlight. Hunger Free Vermont, we have realized that we were not being as effective as we could have been in our outreach role. And Vermont Language Justice Project's work has really helped us to improve the effectiveness of our outreach work. So while I'm speaking about food access and S243 is specifically focused on producing, being ready to produce emergency videos on disease outbreaks and other health issues. I just wanted to come and let the committee know about the profound effectiveness of VLJP's work in our area of work. And of course, we do believe that food access is a health issue as well. So that's why Hunger Free Vermont is here in strong support of S-two 43. And we thank this committee for your consideration of and we urge you to pass S-two 43 to support this really, really critical need that we know will be coming for Vermonters. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Anur. I appreciate that. Okay, Eric. Welcome. Thank

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: you. An interesting little copywriter. This isn't. Thank

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: you. So Eric Foran, I'm the director of Vermont Emergency Management. So I just have a quick brief out here. So as we all know, I'm not here to directly advocate for funding that is not in the governor's budget. However, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to discuss a gap that I see in the state's ability to respond quickly to disasters. Following disasters like the twenty three and twenty four flooding event, it was clear that the state did not have immediately available multi language videos that we can provide to survivors to ensure that the entire population of Vermont is receiving our messages. Having access to ready deployable multi language preparedness videos would be beneficial to Vermonters. Utilizing an existing network of producers to create those videos would be more efficient. BEM is currently working with a producer to create preparedness videos in 19 languages with the assistance of the racial equity office. VM is working with that producer to help them be included on the state contractors list so they can be used more quickly in a disaster. So in general, we we have utilized these services in the past. But again, we we we aren't necessarily advocating for one side or the other on the funding. I do like to point out that there are multiple languages and, you know, we try to hit 100% of the population, and we're at 95%. So we're we're making a very large push to get to that. We've worked with Allison, we're working with her right now to and her groups and make sure that we can produce some preemptive videos. So a disaster may be coming this is what you could do in 19 languages. We've worked a lot with them to get the videos that they've already produced onto our website to make sure that we can access them. So a lot of interaction. There's some moving forward that we're looking forward to, and we're working on it right now, but we're happy to ask answer any questions.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I'm gonna break my own rule, which I said we're

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: doing okay. But just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: because you're sitting in witness chair. So what I'm hearing you say is that you have current resources that you're utilizing to use the service of the Vermont Language Justice Project around emergency management?

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: Racial Equity Offices has a funding source.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Through them. Through them.

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: They have some funding to convert existing preparedness documentation into multiple languages. So we're using that to work with Alison and her group. And then they actually have some reoccurring funding for new preparedness videos. So we're working with them on that as well.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: For your flexibility and being available last minute. But can you also talk a little bit about two things? One, how does it work for those funds to be accessed? Who determines what emergency or what project can be requested or are you to be translated? And then second, you mentioned working with organization, with the language justice project to get on the list of state contractors. Can you just talk about what does that process look like if you know, and how long does it take, and what does the organization need to provide to like, be able to do that?

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: So with the current projects, we've been working directly with BLJCP and the Office of Racial Equity to make sure that these preparedness videos fall in line with what the understanding of that fund is. And so they've agreed that it is and makes sense to to create these preparedness videos. So really, it's in lots of technical terms here, but I think it's an MOA with racial equity to give us the money to then have a contract with Allison's group to make this very specific subset of videos. So that's that's this project. In the future, we want to be able to in an event of a disaster be able to call on Allison very quickly. And she says she has very quick turnaround. That would be easier if on a contract list. So the state agencies can use the contract list and go to them directly. You don't have to RFP, you don't have to do all the paperwork. To get her on that list, I I think there's lots of hurdles there. So we're working with them to make sure that they get through the hurdles. I don't know the specifics of it, but our our group is working to make sure they're submitting the paperwork. I think we have to send out an RFP for the general idea of what we expect them to do. It's not just for VM. It's for all state agencies. Agency. What opens it up much larger. So I believe that RFP goes out. Allison made the point. There's really no one else in the state of Vermont that can do these things, But it puts it out there at the bigger level so individuals can send things in. So that would get their group closer and easily accessible during an event where we time is of the essence.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: How long does that process usually take?

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: A couple of months. Goes over of months, I think. But we're trying to push it as quickly as we can before the flood season comes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alison, do you want to respond?

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: We're on the Vermont buyers list. We are fiscally sponsored by United Way of Vermont, which is the two one one organization. So we're actually on Vermont Buys. Yesterday, I signed up with the business something of Vermont as well. And you have to know, I'm really a social worker by train. Brand new to me in the last couple of years, all this other stuff. But we've done multiple contracts with the Department of Mental Health. We've just, the Department of Libraries, they see that we're on the Vermont buys. And so we've contracted with them. We've just signed the contract for them. So we've done huge projects with the Vermont Department of Labor. So we are there in the system. And it's just very confusing what else we have to do. You tell us what hurdle we have to jump and we will jump at.

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: As we're working on, Vermont Buy is a system that allows you to be paid on an existing contract.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: As

[Eric Forand, Director, Vermont Emergency Management]: she mentioned, she has contracts with these groups because they reached out to her specifically. So having a contract, having them on the actual pre authorized contract list just makes some of that upfront stuff. You don't have to do an RFP. You just can go out to them directly. So it should get her in the door quickly. And theoretically, other agencies that do the same thing. But like she said, she's kind of the only game in town because she does a fantastic job at it.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: Thanks, Eric.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Eric. Appreciate that. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Much to move back. We are going to move to the health department now. I'm not sure who all is speaking first or?

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Long is going to go first and we have Amber.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Welcome.

[Song Nguyen, Director of Health Equity, Vermont Department of Health]: Hi, thank you. I was going say good morning. It's almost afternoon. Good day, everyone. Thank you for having us and thank you so much for your work on this committee. For the record, I'm Song Nguyen, pronouns are she, her, hers. I'm with the Vermont Department of Health, Director of Health Equity, and I'm joined by Amber Leventry.

[Amber Leventry, Public Health Communication Officer, Vermont Department of Health]: Hi, Amber Leventry. Theythem pronouns. Thank you for having us. I am one of the public health communication officers at Department of Health. So I'm here to support Song and any questions you may all have, but I'm going to let Song take the lead on the testimony.

[Song Nguyen, Director of Health Equity, Vermont Department of Health]: Thank you, Amber. So as some of you may already know, health equity is a core part of the health department's mission and values. During the COVID-nineteen pandemic, it became clear that one of the ways that we could enhance our equity work was really to ensure that our public health information was accessible to as many people in Vermont as possible, including translated materials. Also during the pandemic, we were fortunate enough to receive federal funds, including the CDC Health Disparities Grant that's been referenced before, specifically focused on reducing health disparities, and also supported a variety of equity related work at the health department. Language Justice Project, became a valued partner, particularly around that time. They were able to create, and distribute messages very quickly in various languages and really understood the unique cultural differences that helped messages really resonate with the public. And a lot of those materials, you know, we still reference to this day. So we understand that, people who speak and read other languages absolutely need information to stay safe and healthy just as urgently as those who speak and read English. In emergency situations like a pandemic or flood, not having information readily available is not just inequitable. We know that it can put lives at risk. On a personal note, I am a proud descendant of a former refugee from Vietnam and immigrant from South Korea, born and raised in Vermont. I grew up seeing my parents struggle, every day with language access needs. It impacted how they got their needs met or not, and absolutely impacted how I was able to access resources growing up in Vermont. I can attest that the health department takes translation and interpretation very seriously. At the department, we do regularly assess language needs to better serve Vermonters. Right now, in this moment, we have nearly 2,000 translated materials up on our website, including vital documents and general resources for Vermonters who need to access information like WIC applications, vaccination consent forms, etcetera. When there's an emergency that, requires the health department's guidance, we lean on our, content experts to really determine if new materials are needed to be created. We have proactively created evergreen materials that are shared on our website, distributed through our partners to ensure timely messaging, and we also have, WhatsApp as an alternative form of communication for these alerts. Additionally, when we apply for grants, funding is regularly set aside for translation materials. For example, right now in this moment, the health department has a public health infrastructure grant where we have a budget line item set aside for translation and interpretation. We also have a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Racial Equity to access funds that they've set aside for vital translations specifically. So bottom line, the health department already has resources to do translation work consistently. We also recognize that all of state government would really benefit from the important work that Vermont Language Justice Project is doing, and we absolutely support Vermont Language Justice Project's efforts to ensure that their services can be accessed more readily by state government, even beyond the health department. In a case of a statewide emergency, there are other agencies that are often leading messages, and it's not always the health department who is sort of at the front of those messages. So it's clear from the health department's perspective that a broader approach beyond the health department for translation supports would help reach more Vermonters with critical information most effectively. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Amber, do you have anything you want to add?

[Amber Leventry, Public Health Communication Officer, Vermont Department of Health]: No, Song summed it up, and I know Eric will from other groups and the state contract is something I've talked to Alison about and that we're also advocating for. I'm happy to help with any overcoming those hurdles as well. So I'm happy to assist in questions, but some did a Thank good you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm just double checking the road.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. Thank you both for being here. I know both of you personally. I'm so happy to see you here. Song, can you tell us how the health department currently determines what projects should be translated? Because I think Alison's testimony said that since the end of the CDC grant that the health department has not engaged their services for any translation. So just wondering, what is your determination process in house at BVH to determine whether or not something is needed? Because as Chair mentioned, like our immunization bill that just passed, we all kind of thought about that and thought, oh, that would have been something that would be really good to have translated.

[Song Nguyen, Director of Health Equity, Vermont Department of Health]: Yeah, that's a great question. I can start and I may turn it over to Amber as well to add to this. But new translation needs, they may be identified through a couple of different ways, some through community partners. We also have various local health offices throughout the state that really feed information up to our central office as well. You know, really, there are a number of avenues where we're able to get feedback from folks, through my team, the health equity integration team, also various committees that our staff sit on. And we have a broad network of partners and folks in the community that really help feed information up to the health department and also support feeding our information out to communities. So, you know, oftentimes when resources are shrinking for public health, we have had to make some strategic decisions around how to really prioritize the highest needs and use our funds strategically, particularly since our CDC health disparities grant ended.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alison, I wanna ask you a question. So it seems like in sort of other places in state government and outside of state government, like with a NORS organization, that they are figuring out ways to utilize your services. And I guess I'm wanting to be clear about the request here seems to be specifically for the health department. Is that what I'm I don't want to make assumptions, guess is my question.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: No, no, no. This one is specifically for the health department. And I think that's because there are so, I started thinking when the measles outbreak started, we managed to get in a video about being vaccinated for measles just before the chop came down and no more money was being given to us. I think about there was a whooping cough outbreak in think Lamoille County. Things like that, I think, had we still had the CDC grant, we'd have probably done videos about that. The thing about the changes that you talked about regarding vaccination, we would have put a video out about that. So those are some of the, and now I've forgotten what your question was, but those are some of the things that we would be doing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think you answered the question.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: But I also really wanna really Yeah. Really, really clear. Some of the languages that we do videos in are not translatable because they're not written languages. Mai Mai is a huge It's spoken by many, many people who would normally be called Somali, but they're actually Somali Bantu. Majority of them do not speak Somali. Maimai is not a written language. So we can have translations in all sorts of languages, but you're not going to be reaching certain populations if they're not done in languages that can't be written. And I really, I feel like the health, this isn't against the health department because they helped us get this whole project going, but I feel that the health department has a very systematic way that they do things. We are much more on the ground kind of in touch with people like, you know, I have everybody's phone number who I work with all my contractors and we are able to get messages out to the people in a really different way without things going up hierarchies and going back down or going sideways. We get the mess let me just give you one example. So we work with our Mandarin translator. She has a WhatsApp group of over 100 Mandarin speakers throughout the state of Amman who she works with independently as an interpreter. Whenever we do a message, our Mandarin message goes back to her. She then sends it out to those 100 people, boom, like that, within ten minutes of us making the message. So I think that Department of Health does things in particular ways. And I know that they find that we are incredibly useful as the Department of Emergency Management because we can get messages out in all sorts of unorthodox, unusual kinds of ways in that way. So I want to say that as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I think that is a really important point to make. So by things being posted on a website is not the most efficient way to get things out to people. And I think, know, Anora spoke to that in her testimony. And I appreciate that, you know, honestly, how far I've worked in state government for a number of years, and we've come a long ways in state government in terms of trying to make it accessible to people where English is not their first language. And not saying anything against the efforts of the health department, but the need to be proactive and the need to be quickly active in some cases, emergency management or a very significant health concern that is immediately arising. I think the Vermont Language Justice Project has shown just by the example that we heard and saw in the testimony, getting a request one day and within forty eight hours, it was out and distributed to lots of different people. And so the presence of something on a website just isn't enough these days. And I'm curious, Song or Amber, have you done what emergency management is doing in working with the Office Equity of to access funding that they have in order to do any kind of messaging for health department issues?

[Amber Leventry, Public Health Communication Officer, Vermont Department of Health]: Yeah, Song, if it's okay, I'll speak to this. So it's an MOU and I do manage that. I work with the Office of Racial Equity. And the funds are to translate vital documents and or documents considered vital or other projects. Video projects are fine. Where we run into our own barriers or health is we need to go through the RFP process to work with Vermont Language Justice Project because they're an approved vendor. And so in order to be equitable about the process, we have to put out a bid to several vendors. And so I've asked Allison, I agree with Eric, if we had them as a state contract, that wouldn't be a question. We could just go directly to Allison and say, hey, we have this fact sheet from this particular division, we think it's important also be translated in videos. Let's do it. Right now, we can't do that using those MOU funds. We can translate information. And I totally agree between literacy issues and people who don't have access to the internet, having information just on a website isn't enough. And so we are proactive in making sure we get information out onto WhatsApp on social when it's appropriate. Not all people who don't speak English aren't always on Facebook or Instagram. I try to not be on Facebook any more than I need to be. But we do use other avenues. And we do work really, really closely with local health and community partners to make sure we're getting information from either a piece of paper to a family member or word-of-mouth. So we do work closely with folks, especially when it came with the bird flu, we worked closely with Bridges to Health, and we had interpreters on-site at farms giving information directly to those people to make sure that they were protected and they were proactive about protecting themselves. So even though we don't always do everything in video translations, we are working closely with the community and other partners to make sure they're getting the information in the way that they need it and not just on a website.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So appreciate that. I'm also struck by the fact that when the CDC funding ended, so did your contract, or so did your contact, it seems, at least from listening to the testimony earlier. It seemed like there there hasn't been any contact since January 2025 around I think that was the date. Anyway, 2020. So I'm trying to, I guess, to figure out, it seems like what you were just talking about, Amber, seems to be in contrast to what the previous witness said about there being previously a more fluid relationship between the health department and the language justice project.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: I just want to say that we actually got an email from lead department within Vermont Health Department, and we're going to be meeting with them next week. So that's the first one since the CDC contract ended.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So certainly, I'm gonna we'll check-in to see what we can do about if there's anything that we can do to expedite the being on Vermont BUYES registered as a potential vendor in the state, that's not the same thing as being So essentially a pre qualified we'll see what we can do about that. I just made a note to maybe that's an addition to our bill, an RFP process for an entity that is the only one in the state is kind of a silly thing.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Who's also responding in urgent situations.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, proven. It's a proven entity. So, okay. Any other questions for the group? And honestly, I really appreciate the fact that I didn't know anything about this until this morning. Well, I mean, until we got the bill and I started

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: learning But about

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I appreciate, Alison, that you exist

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: The work that you do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that we are encouraging more diversity of our population in Vermont and being able to have them access to the have accessibility to all the same things, that information that English speaking people do, I think is important, particularly around health and emergency, but on other issues. So anybody watching this, I'd encourage you to be contacting the Language Justice Project so you can get the word out.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: Please check out our website. We have every video that we've ever made listed.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I did. I have checked it out.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: The breadth of subjects, but you can see how useful it would be.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Definitely. And I appreciate you saying ASL as well, because that is something that is, in some cases and in our world here, a common need. So it's good to know. I'm gonna also pass along your information to our Sergeant at Arms Office for legislative operations. I think that that could be helpful in some circumstances. Yes. Yeah. So have it from Alison and Anor. So, Song, if you could send in your written testimony, that would be good. And Eric, you as well. That would be good. Any final questions for the witnesses? And we are gonna be hearing from the Office of Racial Equity. They just were not able to be here this morning. Okay. Thank you all for being here so much. We appreciate it. And again, Alison, thank you for the work that you do on behalf of Vermonters.

[Alison Seeger, Vermont Language Justice Project]: Thank you so much for having us. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Take care. All right. We are going to be on the floor at one. Look forward to a rousing debate on the education bill. And we will not be meeting after the floor, as you've probably figured out. Just as a reminder, I'm not here tomorrow, and we have a scheduled field trip. Ray is going to be in charge of whether we need to reschedule that depending upon what other amendments pop up on 09:55 between second and third reading. So we will need to be in touch with Angie Harbin at Mhmm. Downstreet Housing if we need to reschedule. And if if we can kinda make that decision by, like, you know, you know, 10:30 or so, that'd be good to let her know.