Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back, folks. I'm gonna ask you if you could to go to the committee's web page and take a preview of we're talking about JRH nine now. Take a preview of Pascal Chang's testimony. So we've heard from ASHA. This is on communication and how people who do not speak verbally communicate or have access to technology to assist them to communicate. We heard from the National Association around there. This resolution, just to remind you, is encouraging the National Association to reverse its stance on a particular type of therapy. The other thing that I learned, and they are not going to do that. That's pretty clear. They're not going to reverse their stance. So I guess one of my questions is whether or not we as a committee want to pass out a resolution that really is not going to have an impact. Or we could be making an affirmative statement, such as what Pascal Chang is recommending. And he provides two links. And the ones that I'm gonna ask you to take a look at, the first one is in the third paragraph of his testimony where he says on the state website, he's talking about Dale's. If you go to that website, the first thing is it takes you to the Dale website. The thing is the highlighted area on that website that says it's got the presumption of confidence. Are we okay, Laurie?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I was just flashing just out.

[Unidentified participant (technical aside)]: Oh, we're actually

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're still live on my phone, but

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: You did this yesterday. And this is blinking.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, and that was the last one. Okay, all right. So the presumption of competence. Oftentimes people who cannot verbally speak because of a disability are presumed to not be competent in their thoughts or in their actions. And so what I would like to propose, and I didn't realize that we could do this. So with a resolution, we can make changes to it or totally revise it just like we can up build. So Michael Chernick is gonna join us when Pascal is here, and he'll talk to us a little bit about that, about how we can do that. So what Pascal is gonna be recommending, and I would like the committee to consider, is us really putting forth the notion that people have the right to have access to communication devices, access to assistance communicating, and this notion of presumption of competence. And so I would also ask you to look at the, let's go back to this. Further down in his testimony, he references the state of New York is proposing language. I actually really like the language that they have, what they're proposing. I can't believe they still have laws that are called mental hygiene, that's neither here nor there. But it talks about in order to ensure that each person with a disability is able to lead a life of dignity, all persons with a disability shall have the right to communicate in their preferred manner and utilize any communication supports that meet their needs and staff and providers, we don't have say under this section, ensure and acknowledge such rights. And that the state of Vermont, I would say here, the state of Vermont is ensuring and acknowledging those rights. So what I'd be proposing is to substitute language that talks about presumed competence that was on the Dale website and some version of this language that is being proposed to New York State. That just says people have the right to communicate in their preferred way. So keep that in the back of your head, because unless there's kind of like big objections to it, I feel like putting out a resolution that was sent to us that we have already heard they're not gonna change their mind about. It seems like it would be more fruitful for us to say people should have the right to communicate and that we should support that right to communicate. I like that letter. I like that letter. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I would just also add to conversation that I was feeling uneasy in recommending something where the medical organizations, the professionals in the organization have all been recommending against. It would seem inconsistent for us where we are normally saying we should follow, often say we should follow experts like we did with immunization and the like. And be reversing through

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that approach. This enables us to support people's alternative and alternative communication and their preferred choice without going against the national organization that I think that they also That's the sort of certification body for speech and language pathologists. So if you folks are amenable to that, that's what we'll suggest. I think after we hear from Pascal, it was very helpful to have this information from him. So that was that on that particular page. So I also had an update in my noontime meetings on S-one 193. So judiciary is hoping to vote that out by Tuesday next week. There's gonna be another version that appears on Tuesday, and it is going to be referred to corrections and institutions. And so we are probably gonna make our recommendations to corrections and institutions and work with them to get the language that we want to have included. And the goal is to have that bill be voted out of corrections by Friday, because it still needs to go back to the Senate. And the bill as it stands right now and the way the language is coming out would be to not have it be run by corrections, have it be under the AHS umbrella. It could be located on a correctional campus, a separate program to take advantage of the security that surrounds such a campus, but not run by corrections and with separately contracted healthcare and professional providers. This is a substantial deviation from the Senate version. And so I don't know exactly what will happen about that. And it requires the agency human services, or at least what's being proposed right now downstairs is requires the agency human services to come back with, okay, we didn't agree with your plan, but we agree that there's a need and give us these are the parameters and give us the cost estimates, give us your plan to implement this version. So that's the way it's looking like it's progressing through the committee downstairs. And I think that I represented our committee in saying that we would be open to including in that recommendation that they give consideration to expanding Act two forty eight for people with dementia, people with brain injury, to be able to also have community safety as well as programming for those individuals. There just really isn't any way that those folks should be in a correctional facility. It's not advisable for the facility and it's not advisable for them. But I think that we appear to all be the policy committees based on our information here and the other three committees, appear to be in the same realm of agreement on it not being run by corrections, but having a secure location and having specific pathways for least restrictive environment. So we'll see what the language actually looks like when it comes out judiciary. And we are gonna work with Katie tomorrow afternoon. So I know we've been kind of the last couple of weeks, we've been buzzing off a little early. We'll probably be here for a little while tomorrow afternoon, longer than we have been. Because we need to take advantage of when we can get Katie. She's been busy downstairs and tomorrow afternoon we get her for a good chunk of time. And if we are, oh no, that's Jen next the next bill. So we have our witnesses coming at 02:30. So Laura, you can just kind of put us on pause for right now. Oh no, we could have an update on what happened downstairs in the Senate.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so today I spent winning in the Senate Health and Welfare. They voted out two of our bills on full five-zero votes, six sixty and six fifty seven. They talked about S-two 39, the working group. And because they hadn't wanted to vote, they couldn't actually vote on it, but they talked about how they had supported our work in the House, and they plan to concur. So I'm not sure if that's tomorrow or if it will be Tuesday, but they'll be voting that out. 06:60 looks very different, so we'll have some conversations. 657, they just made two very minor changes, but otherwise kept it intact. There are two very minor changes, but it is a strike all just because of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Where the change is happening?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, of it being a very long bill.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: The number? Five 0, everywhere there. Was like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: an AMS. Thanks. I have a copy of a spreadsheet I'll leave here on Anne's desk, but this is the spreadsheet on age six sixty. They made a lot of changes on six sixty. They put $1,100,000 in for the overdose prevention. I know that's not, I was hoping to be able to vote on it. Well, I don't know what we're gonna do with this right now. I'll be honest with you. Senator Lyons. Senator Lyons knows that there are some problems with this for us.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And she was talking about, assumes it will be a committee of conference. She was like, when we're in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the committee of conference. So yeah. When I talked to her on Tuesday, I said there were a couple of the things that I had heard reports on that there were a couple of deal breakers for us on what she was doing. And they also not included it here in June, but they've taken money out of the opioid settlement for the higher ability counselors, but they did that in the budget. That's another thing. We're not gonna have these two separate things. So I will need to be talking to Ron about that if we agree with that, but I don't think that we do. So just so you know, we are getting, we're lining up testimony with the city of Burlington and the health department on the changes here and to get an update on the Overdose Prevention Center. And they've inserted some language. It's contingency money, but I don't have any problem letting y'all know that I have a problem with putting any more money into development there. We're looking, if you're gonna operate then, and you're still doing your process of working through it, it doesn't mean we're gonna give you more money. Right now they have access to 2,200,000. They haven't spent 2,200,000, but they have access to 2,200,000. And I think one of the senators downstairs pointed out that, well, if we obligate this 1.1, we can't use it on anything else, it's obligated. And what if they don't spend the money that's already Right. What if despite all their best efforts, they're not able to locate it? Well, there would be a reversion there. So if you want to see the specifics, it's on a spreadsheet right here, and I'm sure Nolan will update that for us as we move through. Other things to be aware is that there's 800,000 in recovery centers that we did not approve of, but that they got in on the Senate version. Level 3.1, is that still called treatment or recovery?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: 3.1 or higher, that's treatment.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's treatment, okay. So there's money in here about that and they split some of that out.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: It did, yeah. It didn't add to the bottom line of the money. What the request was made was to just split it. This goes on over here and the other part stays.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, there's something at work there, which I suspect is why Gregory wanted to talk. I'm not sure. I think it has something to do with Jenna's Promise, but I don't know exactly.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: No, it's more towards, because I went back and reviewed where the testimony was sent in by Recovery Incorporated. Oh, it was Chad Vige. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, sorry. Chad Vige, yeah. So we'll see. We'll see what happens about that. It looks like Pascal is joining us. Good timing.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Good question.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. Jubilee. Yeah. I don't know if you were down there or yesterday, it looks like they had, right after they were talking about the homelessness bill, were talking about the recovery, s one two seven, recovery residence bill. I don't know if you were there for any of that yet.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: For yesterday? Yeah. No. I was in there yesterday.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Pascal, welcome.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: Hi. Must be at the State House.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, That is where we are, Pascal. And I bet that you are not on Lake Champlain, but that looks like a beautiful picture of Lake Champlain.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: I'm only about half half a mile from it, and that's what it looked like earlier this week, but not today.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it's it's a beautiful picture. So welcome. We're gonna do introductions because it's sometimes difficult to see who's in the room. I wanna make sure you know who all you're speaking with. Nice to see you again. Theresa Wood from Waterbury, and I also serve Bolton, Gulesport and Honey.

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just a minute Pascal.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The camera moved around again. That freaks me out. I guess we're back again. We remained being live, but we lost the picture momentarily. So, okay, I introduce myself, Dan Noyes.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon, I'm Daniel Noyes. I represent Wilkett, Hyde Park, Johnson and Belvedere.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Hi, good afternoon, Eric Maguire, represent Rob Wood City.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Brenda Steady, East Milton, Westford.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Hello, Doug Bishop, and I'm one of Colchester's representatives. Hello, I'm Zon Eastes, I live in Guildford, I also represent Vernon.

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

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: I didn't catch your name again. Esme. Esme, okay, great.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Hi, I'm Jubilee McGill and I represent Bridport Middlebury, Uphaden and Windbridge. I am Rutland Garofano. I live in Essex and I also represent Essex Junction.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Laurie, over here in the corner,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: trying to deal with the technology. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Pascal. And thank you for reviewing the resolution. And you're gonna tell us a little bit about your experience. And we we have taken a look at your written testimony. And we are just being joined by Michael Chernick, who's a legislative counsel and who drafted the resolution. So the floor is yours and thank you for being here this afternoon.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: So where would you like me to start?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If you wouldn't mind just telling us a little bit about yourself and what you have been doing for the last many years, as well as a little bit about the Vermont Communication Task Force.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: Okay. Yeah, so I've been working in the field at least over forty years, more than that, actually. But I started working at the Brandon Training School, that's how I got into the field, then I went to UVM and got a master's in special education. So I was a special education teacher for several years in the southern part of the state, and then moved to the Burlington area and began working at the Howard Center, where I worked for forty something years. And I had different jobs there over the years, but in the early '90s, I became interested in communication, and that became my role at the Howard Center. I developed a communication services program there that probably most of you know, in many of our agencies, there are many people that have communication challenges, and so there's a lot of need there. And at the Howard Center, we began to see that we needed, as an agency, needed to build our capacity and have staff that could actually work directly on those needs. Over those years, I developed experience and expertise with one of thethey're referred to as the assisted methodsthat's a term that's now being usedfacilitated communicationthe RPM, the rapid prompting method, which your initial resolution was that's another one, and then spelling to communicate. I've had lots of years of experience with that, worked with many different people in both different ages and different places. And right now, I retired from the Howard Center a year and a half ago, but I'm still doing consulting and training, so I still work with people at the Howard Center and also different people from other agencies in the state. And I've been around the controversy around these quote unquote assisted methods. It's been going on for many years. But one of the things, I think the letter that was developed by the Vermont Communication Task Force trying to look atwe're trying to really look atthere's been a lot of resistance or lack of acceptance for people having access to these methods, and I think the movement around supporting them has moved to a place of it's a communication rights issue, that people need to have access to the method of communication that they feel works best for them, and that the team around them does. To back up, the Vermont Communication Task Force, it began in the year 2000, and the idea behind it is it's a representative group of people from around the state, and most of the developmental service agencies have a representative on this task force. We also have speech language pathologists, someone from the Department of Aging and Independent Living, and then we also have some ad hoc members. But the idea was, by having this task force, we could, as a group, work on system wide issues that relate to communication. So our mission has been to improve supports and services for people around the state around communication. And one of the things we've been involved in more in the last ten years is advising on different policies that relate to communication. Just as an example, there was a new assessment tool that was developed to identify what people's needs for services were. And initially, communication was not a section that focused on that. We felt that that was really important and advised that there should be a section included in that. And then we've also developed guidelines around use of facilitated communication, for example, but we also have developed guidelines for how agencies develop, how they document a person's communication needs. So we've tried to work on a statewide basis, and a lot of it is sort of beginning to change the system to better meet the needs of people who have communication challenges.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. So, one of the things that you shared, and thank you for pointing out that this is what's on our website, is from the communication task force. So did the task force did you have members meet and did they review JRH nine? Did you all review

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: the Yes. Well, we had we have a subgroup, a small group of people that actually work on some of the nitty gritty things of policy development and guidelines. The greater network they're representatives from agencies, but they change a lot because people change their jobs, they leave their agencies, so we're kind of a core group. So we all review the resolution. So it's a group of six or seven people.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so what the group is recommending is that instead of focusing on a single communication method and Ash's resistance to it, that modifying the resolution so it's focused on the right of, you know, every person to access communication assistance in their preferred method of communication. And I really appreciate the connections to the statement on the Dale website that talks about the presumption of competence as well as the draft language that's under consideration in New York State. And essentially confirming and stating that it's a right of all individuals to be able to communicate in their chosen method and form of communication. And that communication, in fact, helps people to lead full and inclusive lives. So that's, I think, really important. So what I'm hearing you say is that rather on behalf of the task force through this this written statement is that it'd be preferable to speak to that right to to communicate as opposed to sort of calling out one particular communication method and and the national organization's resistance to it.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: Yes. That's right. Yep. And just when because I think one of the things that the statement from Dale came about because there was resistance to the use of facilitated communication, and so what we realized was that this is a bigger issue than just that method, is that idea of people have the right to have access to communication, and they have the right to choose what method they want to use. I think in general that right to choose is for lots of things in people's lives. That's the whole idea of person centeredness and people having the rights and control over things in their life.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Great. Are there questions from other committee members? I think you've been really clear, and the document you provided was really clear. And I think we'll we'll definitely influence our actions. So, hopefully, you can bring that back to your, colleagues on the task force and express our appreciation for the information and sort of the refocus on the right to have access to communication in the method and manner in which people choose. I think that's a good refocusing of this. Thank you for being here today, Pascal. It's nice to see you.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: Well, great. Thank you all.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You. Okay. Take care.

[Pascal Chang (Vermont Communication Task Force; witness)]: Bye.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Ledge Council, would you like to join us at the There is a chair.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Where is that tap?

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: One of our remote tides, actually.

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

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Oh, nice.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Michael Chernick, Legislative Counsel. Will first make just a couple of broad comments. I had really no idea this was being taken up at all until representative Wood spoke to me. And that you may, if you decide to proceed, of course, that's entirely your call, of course, you might want to consider the potential of doing this house as only for the procedural reason only that we're now at April 30. And I'm assuming the committee, if it decides to move forward, wants something that's going to get through the legislative process. And given where we are in the date, it could be stranded in a senate committee if you all of you decide to move forward. And if even if it passes the house, there's no guarantee what may or may not happen in the senate. Again, that's your call, but I just leave that as an option you may want to consider if you're more focused on making a legislative statement on the topic and making sure it becomes an official statement versus it being in process piece of legislation in one house that just dies due to the minimum amount of time at the of the session. That's your call, but I just raise it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So so it was actually news to me until till we had the conversation a little while ago that we could actually modify it.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: And do whatever you want with it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. So so is it so so you said a house resolution. Does that mean we have to go through the process of no, because it wouldn't be sponsored, because then at that point, is it sponsored by us?

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: That would be the option, is it could be a community re It could be a If we're going to switch it from a JRH to an HR, if that were to happen, I think what would happen then it would become a probably I would double check with Betsy Anne, but I believe it would become a committee resolution at that point. Okay. As opposed to a a report. You could also just do a strike o, you could amend it and just let it stay as a joint, and hope that your colleagues in the other chamber decide to take it up before the end of session. That's your call completely.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. But

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: I think, and I'll double check with Betsy Anne, that if you were to switch it from a joint to a one house only, it probably would need to come out as a new resolution to the committee. And I can get a confirmation on that, but I don't need that to be the case.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. So I think we had some conversation prior to Pascal joining us, But I think that what we would like to do is to essentially, for the moment, we'll just keep it as a strike all. So to strike the content of it. And to then reference, and you can see it on our website, Pascal's, it's under Pascal Chang's name. He provides a link to the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living website. And there's a statement on website that is referencing the presumption of competence for people. So we would like to sort of fit that into legislative language.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: To assume that the individuals are

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: competent regardless of any diagnosis. Regardless of ability to communicate verbally. That's what the resolution does. So it essentially says that it's important to note that difficulties with communication not be taken as evidence of intellectual competence. And so, and it goes on. It's just a couple of sentences.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, can just take it from the website and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think we're at as well. You might need to modify it.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Modify it just so it fits into our format, but selectively leaving it alone.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then the second piece later in that document, he references the state of New York's pending legislation, and we like the language on that.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that a regular bill in New York?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In New York, it is a bill.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't wanna look at the finding, because you're looking at a resolution here, not a bill.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Correct, yeah, no, it's just, we like

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: the- Maybe there are findings in it that I can pull.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it essentially is saying in order to ensure that each person with a disability is able to lead a life of dignity, all persons with a disability shall have the right to communicate in their preferred manner and utilize any communication supports that meets their needs. In other words, turn that into a whereas clause. Right, a whereas clause, yeah.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I'm curious, language in there shall have the right to communicate if some of what JRH nine was trying to do was to include in an educational setting the methods that OSHA does not prove of. If we're referring to it as a right, would we would schools be required?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. If it says it's not a law, it's a resolution.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, guess that's, I understand that. I guess my question is, even in resolution, that word carries no

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a statement of our beliefs.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Would, as I'm writing, and I ask a question, my understanding from listening to the conversation in the last ten, fifteen minutes is what you're looking for is the right, the ability to communicate, endorsing a particular method per se. Correct. But should I be mentioning that, that this is not endorsing any one particular method?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think what we're saying is that people, we don't want to endorse, but we don't want to- Exclude. Exclude. So I think we would just say styled on that, saying right to communicate through any alternative or augmentative communication. Has

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Scott provided a link to the New York or

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in Yes, the did. Okay. Yes, it's in that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: It's very brief.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, if you go to his document on our website, you'll see the Both

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: the New York link and the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The New link. Yes, they're both there. So we're essentially wanting to say that people have a right to communicate, they have a right to receive assistance to do that. And we should presume that a person's competence is not

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: That would be right at the top.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. It's right at the top. That we should presume competency of individuals. It is actually quite amazing. I have seen more than two handfuls, people who have been unlocked. Their ability to communicate has been unlocked by some of these methods. And so, yes, we do not want to endorse any particular method and we do not want to we're not going to mention the national ASHA, which is that's the purpose of this. The way it's written right now is encouraging the National Association of Speech and Hearing something or other. Yeah. Yeah. To reverse their statement. And it's clear that they're not going to reverse their statement. And so we prefer to make an affirmative statement about people's ability and right to communicate.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: The reason it's written the way it is goes back even before I started working on this particular portfolio, because we had explained to our office, had explained to the sponsor that the challenges for a state mandate on this particular topic were that in order for a state to mandate, to require in the first place, it would have to be a system that had professional acceptance. And by that professional acceptance, it was highly unlikely that any state would endorse a particular system. That's- Any state, not just Vermont.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's where we fell down on this as well. We said, even though we've seen people in our own committee exhibit their right to communicate using a method that is not endorsed by ASHA, we respect their right to say that, but we also respect the individual's right to use that form of communication that fits their needs. So I think where we've come down on this is just to make sure that we're making an affirmative statement.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: So I then have a couple of drafting questions, if I may. Yeah. Number one is what's my timeline?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, yeah, probably not what I would want. But so we can move it to next week. I was hoping to vote this out tomorrow. But You wanna vote it out tomorrow? I'd like to vote it out tomorrow.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: If we do it for tomorrow, we can discuss this for a moment, the nuts and bolts. Yeah. It's going to need to be relatively short, maybe no more than four or five whereas clauses of page, page and a half tops. We're not speaking here about a three or four page resolution.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, we are not.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Page maybe, page 1.5 at the outside.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah,

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: three. Number two is that I will be basically relying on those two links. Yes. They're gonna be my source. Number three is, I would appreciate a decision whether I'm changing this into a HR as a new resolution, or whether I'm just doing a strike o amendment. That's your call completely, but I'd like direction on that so I know what I'm doing tonight, so

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you don't waste another legislative day afterwards. Yes, I appreciate that. What are folks thinking about that? Are you thinking we should just do a house resolution?

[Unidentified participant (technical aside)]: I so, just because timing and not knowing what the summit's gonna do, trying to negotiate with the summit to ensure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I also wanna respect representative Burt's attempt to have this and move it to the floor. So I guess we'll go with house resolution.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, which means I set events a new request, but that's not a problem. And I think at that point, I'm putting it in the name of the committee is my understanding?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. You can put it on the House Human Services Committee. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on the floor report, we'll I'll give the floor report, and

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: I will reference What will happen is if you vote it out tomorrow, then we need to formally get it introduced on Tuesday. And as it's a committee resolution, it obviously would not come back to committee. It would just go on It's at the discretion of the speaker, whether it gets how it's treated, but it would probably go on notice for the next It would go on the notice counted for the next legislative day with the possibility of a rule suspension for taking it off. But in terms of those mechanics, Madam Chair, my recommendation would be that you speak directly with the speaker.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Well, she referred it to our committee, and I will make sure she understands what is What you're doing? Happening with Yeah. So if you wanna set

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: a time for me tomorrow so I have an understanding of what I'm doing in terms of time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, Laurie, help me out with that. We have it for, it'll be, don't know how many of those people are going to take. We don't have it on anywhere. No, but we will. You can. Yeah. You want to do it like after? It'll be Until 02:30. Okay. So it'll be a, let's use Katie as much as we can. So it'll be like 02:30 and that would give you a little more time.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. With the understanding this is going to be relatively short. Exactly. For Barry. You can There'll be a few pauses, but I'm thinking about a page.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, and just send it, if you need any input, just use me.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and my other query is to whom is, I'm obviously going to have a different recipient, I imagine, than here. I think I was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What we're gonna say is the Vermont Communication Task Force. Do

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: you have an address for it?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I do not. We can send it in care of Dale, the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independence.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Is the communications task force an element of Dale?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I guess I wouldn't call it an element of Dale per se. Dale facilitates it, that's what I was

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: saying.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: So what I'm going to do is to the Vermont Communications Task Force in the text, but in terms of my form, I'm going to say that it's going to be mailed to Dale, to the task force in care of Dale.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, and if we, I forgot, you have the, I don't have the language right in front of me. Who is the beneficiary? That was going to ASHA, is that who it was going to?

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: It was going to a constituent.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, so I- Hold hold

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, if you give me just a second, maybe that's it's a while since I wrote this. Yeah, to ASHA, yeah. Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can send it to ASHA if we want. ASHA, the Vermont Communication Task Force, I wanna send it to AOE. That's because I want education people to be informed about it.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: In other words, I'm still going I'm going to keep ASHA, and I'll make that the third, and AOE is the second, and the communications task force will be first. And knowing that on that first one, it means mailing it today.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna go with Zon's recommendation, take out ASHA.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Take out ASHA? Okay. So we're going They to care.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They don't care now.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so what we're doing here is the communications task force being mailed to the Dale Commission, for the purposes of my mailing list being mailed to the Dale Commissioner's office

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and to AOE. And AOE, the

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, yeah, Agency of Education. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm gonna piggyback off. Doug? Doug. I wanted the same dorm. Doug, I was like, I know it's happening. Because I was on the school board so long and special ed is requested by parents that they want this and that and the school to pay for it. So the school will not be obligated if a parent reads this resolution and says, I want the school to get one of those for my child, there's no obligation.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: What this resolution represents would be to support, but a resolution cannot bind anything other than your internal legislative operations. Okay. A really limit, and that's full disclosure, a really limited category of land transfer sales from the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreations, for which there is a statutory provision. Beyond that, we can merely encourage, urge, not bind.

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Not bind, not bind.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: It's expression of political sentiment. It's just budgets are so tight and Yeah, no, it's not binding anything. If this were a bill, that could be very different.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: But this is not a bill, it's a resolution.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And I know he already asked, but I just wanna-

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's a resolution. Can only express your opinion as a legislature or as the house. It doesn't direct anyone to do anything with the exception of mailing the cops, that it does direct.

[Unidentified participant (technical aside)]: That is exactly

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: But beyond that, yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So parents would have to buy it if they want it. Yeah. Okay. Just checking.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Michael. We appreciate that very much and appreciate your ability to, we're trying to clean up things that are on our inbox over there, and this is, this will help. So thank you very much. If

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: I may, Madam Chair, for just a moment on a different topic, I was, before I came over, I'm very close to sending you a rough draft on the other matter that the committee's aware of.

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

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: you. We'll speak for you tomorrow afternoon.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alrighty, thank you so much. Excuse me. Okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: have the oh, they're just coming on. Everybody's on. Everybody's on. Yep. Got I don't have their names. Hold on a second. Wanna make sure I oops. Both the right people. Okay. Alright, committee. This afternoon, We're going to hear first from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on S-one 193, and then we are going to be hearing from Kelli Carroll, who is affiliated with the Voices for Vermont Victims. So welcome, Mia, and Melody and Amanda. Thank you for being here. We appreciated you reaching out and asking to testify on this bill. We've taken quite a bit of testimony on this, and we are nearing the stages of needing to make some decisions. So we appreciate you reaching out the way you did. So the floor is yours.

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Thank you. Thank you for having us, Chair Wood, and good afternoon, everybody. We appreciate this opportunity. We did submit some written testimony. Did everybody get that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just refreshing to see if it quite yet, right? Not yet.

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: So what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. We were gonna

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Go ahead. Hold on just a second. Hold on just a It might be on yesterday's day. Just double checking. Nope. So we don't seem to have it right in front of us, but we will. So why don't you just get started?

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Sure. We just wanna First of all, the three of us serve, as you said, as commissioners for the Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We will each introduce ourselves in our respective parts concerning this legislation. We submitted that written testimony. We just want to use our time today to briefly explain how we arrived at our concerns and why we decided to submit this in the first place. We're simply asking lawmakers to reconsider placing this response under the Department of Corrections and instead to consider a structure better equipped to center treatment, humanity, dignity, and accountability, especially in light of Vermont's history of eugenics and institutional harm, since that's our focus in our commission. My name is Mia Schultz, and I come to this testimony grounded in lived experience, and in the testimonies that we have received from people who have survived and continue to survive mental health crises, and from people who have lived inside carceral systems, those voices have been clear. People are in distress, too many systems still respond by managing, containing, and controlling them instead of caring for them. And our concern is not whether the state should respond when someone is in crisis, including in the hardest case where violence has occurred and harm has been caused. We know that once violence sort of enters the conversation and the picture, it becomes much easier for the person who's in crisis to be reduced to the harm that they cause, and much harder for the state to remain grounded in care, in dignity and accountability. So our concern is what kind of system Vermont is choosing to build, and whether that system is actually capable of providing the kind of care that it promises. And that matters here because this bill is built around mental health evaluations, around treatment, around stabilization, restoration, excuse me, and ongoing review. And if truly that's the goal, then lawmakers have to ask whether a corrections led structure is actually equipped to deliver that kind of care in a meaningful and sustained way. Across our work, we have heard from people living with mental health crises, psychiatric disability, and the impact of institutional and carceral systems. And what we hear again and again is that people in, when people are in distress, that they need care and stability and trust and support. And too often they're met instead with fear, force, isolation and control. And they're treated as risks to manage rather than human beings that are in need of care. They describe not being listened to, not being understood, and being pushed deeper into systems that leave them with less dignity and less autonomy than when they entered. And that matters because a process can look clinically appropriate on paper and still be experienced as coercive, punitive, and harmful in practice. Our concern in the continuity of care is pretty personal for myself. I have a nephew in the carceral system right now with grave medical needs who requires treatment to stay alive. We've been told that there has not been enough capacity to advocate for the medical supports that could actually keep him alive. So I just ask you all, if the system already struggles to meet basic life sustaining medical needs, How can we trust it to carry out something so comprehensive as mental health evaluation, treatment, planning, restoration, and true continuity of care? And so that's why placing this response under the Department of Corrections raises so much serious concern for us, because corrections is not a neutral structure. It's built around custody, surveillance, compliance, and control. And even when people inside that system try to act with care, the larger framework still shapes how behavior is interpreted, how risk is judged, and how non compliance is defined. And so, for people with mental disabilities, can mean their distress, their fear, or difference is read through a punitive lens instead of a supportive one. I also wanted to skip through and talk about our concern for bias and decisions about dangerousness, restoration, readiness for release, and return to confinement. They're all human systems and human systems carry racial bias, disability bias, class bias, and so on and so forth, bias against trauma. And so for people with psychiatric disabilities, intellectual disabilities, communication barriers, or limited resources, those judgments can be especially dangerous. So when someone is already in crisis and already overwhelmed, already misunderstood. How do we incorporate sort of accountability measurements? It has to be built in from the beginning. And that means oversight that's meaningful outside of the department that it lays in. It means being transparent to the public reporting, to public reporting. And that includes who's being confined, for how long, under what conditions and what outcomes. It means disaggregated data that can reveal disparities. And it means meaningful involvement from impacted communities, including people who know firsthand about the harms of coercive and institutional systems. They're not extra features, they're just part of what fairness requires. So, simple ask is just reconsider placing this under the Department of Corrections, choose a structure that's actually equipped to care, center care, dignity, humanity, and continuity from the beginning. And also, if the state does decide to move forward with a secure model, then independent oversight must be strong, accountability has to be strong, and safeguards against bias must be part of the design and not added later. I'd like to pass it over to my colleague, Melody Nakin, who will speak to the history that informs this moment as well.

[Amanda Garofano (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Yes,

[Unidentified participant (technical aside)]: Thank thank you.

[Melody Mackin (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: So hi, my name's Melody and I'm Commissioner Mellie Mackin. And I'm just gonna bring attention to the historical treatment of folks that have been deemed a danger to society that were isolated from community through punitive institutions. So the VTRC, as you know, we were created as a result of an apology for sterilization and institutionalization in order to separate certain people from society. I will say there is a slippery slope to dehumanization, and historically speaking, it's been consistent with a lot of our systems. And now we're working to make them better. So I just want to provide a solid example of just a few. I'll be quick. And I just want to set the stage for this. So I have a few examples of women that were taken into custody within the juvenile detention system at the Week School in the 1960s and 1970s. And there was a process by which folks went into isolation, how they performed intake, and then how they used this as a punitive measure to put people in isolation. And their program was supported by mental health professionals and other care providers. So, is the first entry, the first log entry. I'm gonna read two examples, but it's the same inmate. So, this girl is becoming increasingly upset. The more she is locked up, the less control she is able to maintain under the current, and they put it parentheses program, She clearly is a treatment failure. She unconsciously feels unloved and unwanted, and every time she's locked up, and especially by her cottage parent, the negative cycle is reinforced. She mentioned to me that the only thing they know how to do with me is lock me up. And such obviously is true. Her underlying self destructiveness will be more demonstrable within twenty four hours of solitary. And then again, this is another day that she was in solitary, another time. She has sustained chronic physical parental abuse from parents and step parents since an infant. She was hospitalized at two following a beating and is unfortunate indeed that she is in a corrections milieu where she obtains identity on an unconscious level by authority confrontation with negative surrogate parents, which essentially constitutes her childhood learning shaping experience of regarding adults. She simply does not fit or mesh with the strengths of the weak school on a need level, while simultaneously seeks and has obtained massive confrontation and abuse on another less conscious level from staff interaction. She obviously is on a negative spiral, which will not be interrupted in this institution. Her needs are deeply seated and require significant amounts of individual attention not available at weeks. So this detention system dealt with behaviors they saw as destructive rather than treating her for the root cause and the mental health needs that she had. And you can sort of see how locking her up in this system, which was not equipped for a continuum of care only added to harm, and then led her to a path where solitary and incarceration were her only courses of action. And then on another level, so this is the next student that I would like to mention. So she ought to be transferred to the Lund home directly rather than waiting and running ad Finidum. They have a therapy program as well as therapeutic Milu and could deal with her anxiety avoidance tendencies other than through solitary confinement, which hardly constitutes humane and or effective treatment of a pregnant and emotionally troubled young girl. This is 1973. And you can sort of see like this student, she is becoming a mother. And they're talking about how they're treating her through solitary confinement rather than all of the needs that she has, both mental health wise and her physical being. And then this is the last one I have. So log entry three. She is far more institutionalized than a month ago. She's internalized her hurts and fears while defying the institution status quo as an avoidance device. The larger the staff response to her inappropriate behavior, e. G. Lockup, the more she'll carve and tattoo upon herself in an erotic fulfillment of defiance toward parental substitutes, concomitant with self hate, self destructiveness, of the child who feels unwanted. Actually, isolation is the perfect reinforcer of the entire syndrome. And so, while these examples are within the juvenile system, these are people who are at the cusp of adulthood, and in one case was about to become a mother. So, now imagine adults with these same issues and have persisted for years beyond their childhood and the difficulty of managing such mental health needs within the same type of system. It's only worse, right? And so, this is very early on within the isolation logs. And it is riddled with this type of reinforcement that a punitive system combined with the lack of appropriate treatment is very harmful and discriminatory. So how do you treat the whole human being with trauma informed care and mental health supports? Is the Department of Corrections really equipped with this capability? Because this program had professionals, psychiatrists, had all these mental health professionals that were working with them. And it was very clear in the logs, this is inhumane treatment. This is not good. You should not be doing this. And in one case, they actually had to, they had what they call the hyperkinetic child and they kept putting her in solitary where she couldn't move. And there was some who were hallucinating. They actually had to sedate them just to make them okay. So now if you continue this, we hold all these, we're holding these Vermonters in our care. So regardless of what people have done, they're humans. What's the best system to do this within? And the carceral system is not the appropriate location to deal with mental health issues needed for rehabilitation in this way. So, thank you. And I'm going to pass this on to Amanda Carcas.

[Amanda Garofano (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Thank you, commissioner McKinney and Schultz. Hi, everybody. My name is Amanda Garofano, commissioner for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And I am gonna just would like to focus on what happens after the crisis and how do we bring people back into our community in a way that supports healing. Too often, people with mental health are moved through fragmented systems, and it all from agency to agency, and breaking that trough. So, we want to talk about, you know, what we are recommending. So, for example, someone might be stabilizing crisis settings, but when they return, that support doesn't follow them. They're expected to connect with providers, retell their story, rebuild them trust from scratch. That gap in care can undo the very progress we're trying to make. The chief medical officer at the Howard Center testified today in judiciary about the models in other states that do work, such as the Connecticut ELD model. And this isn't just another set of facilities, it is a commitment to medical ethics over purely legal outcomes. It uses community forensic treatment teams that don't wait for a patient to connect with them. They say that the person across settings from So we have this, like, especially opportunity in Vermont to really think about what is working. So if the goal here is to to fill a real gap in the system, we must really be honest about how we feel it. We cannot respond to a failure in one system by placing people into another system that was never designed to care for them. If we do that, we risk recreating the same harm, just in a different form. I think a true continuum of care is only as strong as the continuing of care within. It means coordinated team based support that stays with one person across settings and over time. This is especially important as they return to the community. From an organizer perspective, we know this cannot rest in one provider or one agency alone. It takes a connected system, holistic clinical teams, community support, and relationships that are accountable to each other and to the person giving care. Because care does not end at this charge. It continues where people actually live their lives providing stability, connection, and real support. And because of that relatively small number of people we're talking about in this, this is an opportunity for Vermont. We can look honestly at our past as commissioner Machin share, respond to what is happening right now, which commissioner Schultz share, and choose to build something different for the future, something grounded in humanity, dignity, and care. We have a chance to create something we can be proud of, something that helps people heal, community all as a whole, not just one person, and something that reflects who we say we are. So I thank you for your time and we're open for questions. Unless the questions wanna add something that we forgot.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You. Thank you all three perspective and the specific examples that you gave around how it makes a difference, what system a person engages with. Questions from committee members for the witnesses. You definitely bring a perspective that we have not heard from, you know, have not heard in this way. And I think that's really important and I think speaks to the value of the commission and, you know, your role there as members of that commission. So we do have a question. Go ahead, representative Cole. Thank you.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I'm trying to think about the best way to articulate this, but I think knowing that the backdrop of this bill as proposed was public safety, community safety, in part on behalf of victims who experience harm's costs. And so I wonder if you could speak more to how your recommendations elevate those concerns as well.

[Mia Schultz (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Sure. I mean, don't think that there has to be an either or scenario where we keep the public safe and we also treat people like humans. And I think that public safety, obviously it matters, victims matter, community safety matters. The gravity of harm does not remove the state's responsibility to build the right kind of system. In fact, the hardest cases raise the stakes of getting that structure right. The question's not whether the state responds, the question's whether the response is rooted in treatment and dignity, and whether it expands carceral control under more clinical language. That's my point of view is that we have to hold both and we have this great opportunity as Commissioner Garofalo mentioned to hold both where dignity for all is included. That doesn't mean carceral. Does that answer your question?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, I think it's very helpful. I think you highlighted something that we tend to think of often. It's like the confluence of, like it's an either or. I appreciate how you put that. It's like either we're protecting the public by putting them in jail or we're keeping them in a community and therefore we're not able to protect the public. And so I think really digging into the reality of that kind of assumption is really important and powerful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Other questions for the commissioners? Thank all three of you for being here this afternoon, and thank you for your feedback and input and giving us a different perspective. That's very helpful.

[Amanda Garofano (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Thank you. Appreciate everyone. Take care.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're just having a little moment here. We think our next witness is here, but we're double checking. Thank

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, we can, I'm just gonna, if I'll let her And then we'll see if we're gonna take a chance. Well, we're not doing anything, so we

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: can So I appreciate you. Zoom land.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, I think that is it. That's the last thing. Kelly?

[Amanda Garofano (Commissioner, Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission)]: Are

[Kelly Carroll (Voices for Vermont Victims; witness)]: you able to hear me okay?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can. You just froze for a minute, but I think that we can. So thank you so much for being here this afternoon, accommodating our schedule. As we get close to the end of the year, we don't have a lot of flexibility in our schedule. So we try to fit people in who wanna testify whenever we can get them in. So I really appreciate your ability to be flexible and be here this afternoon. So welcome. This is the House Human Services Committee. You haven't testified in our committee before, so we're gonna do a round of introductions so you know to whom you're speaking. My name is Theresa Wood, and I am from Waterbury. And I also serve Bolton, Buellscore, and Huntington. Hi. I'm Rey Garofano. I live

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: in Essex, and I also serve Essex Dodson. Hi. I'm Jubilee McGill. I live in Brentwood, and I also serve Middlebury, Middle Haven, and Reverge.

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

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: There. My name is Zon Eastes. I live in Guilford. I also represent Vernon. Hello, Kelly. We've exchanged some emails. Doug Bishop of Colchester.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Brenda Steady. I live in Milton, but I represent East Milton in Westburg.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Hi. Good afternoon. Eric Maguire, Rutland City.

[Michael Chernick (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon, I'm Dan Noyes. I represent Wilkite, Hyde Park, Johnson And Belvedere.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Amy Johnson for Hot Deer Partners.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I'm Laurie over here in the corner, we've been emailing.

[Kelly Carroll (Voices for Vermont Victims; witness)]: Thank you very much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. So please introduce yourself for the record and the floor is yours. We're happy to have you here this afternoon.

[Kelly Carroll (Voices for Vermont Victims; witness)]: Thank you very much. And first of all, my name is Kelly Carroll. I'm a resident of Bennington, Vermont. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and for taking up this very complex bill. And for those of you who been around a while, I'm sure it seems like deja vu because this has been coming up in the five and a half years I've been involved with it. I think this is the third time, maybe four. But like I said, I'm a resident of Bennington. I have a degree in nutrition. I have forty years experience working in healthcare and some of that in behavioural health and developmental services. Five and a half years ago, my daughter Emily Hammond was murdered by somebody who had been deemed not competent, which is a legal determination by the court. And I am here in support of s one ninety three. And I will be direct because I believe that this bill addresses a gap that Vermont has known about for years. It's a gap for a very small high risk population, But these individuals are charged with very violent offenses. And some of them were found not competent to stand trial. Some of them are just stuck in the system now. There's one person who's been in the system for over thirty years. There's another one who went to court this morning. I don't know how it turned out, but she's been in the system for six years. And in our case, it's going on six years. And I think I know that your committee concentrates mostly on disabilities. But I think given the increase, unfortunately, in SUD cases and that issue in Vermont, there are more of these cases that are just intertwined. It's not clear cut, whether it's, is it a mental health issue? Is it a disability? Is it substance use? Is it something else? And that substance use may be a little bit different than like a traumatic brain injury or dementia, right? But right now, we don't have any way to manage any of those cases. And what we have just brings about delay, cycle, and in much of the testimony that you've heard, without structure, without supervision, and without a full continuum of care. And I've been trying to follow all of the testimony in all of the committees. And yesterday, I heard a comment that there will be other cases, unfortunately, and I agree. Emily's murder was preventable. He was out in the community. He had been released. And that that I I don't I don't know if if accountability or if oversight is better, but that was missing. And one thing that I learned by listening to testimony over these last five years, whether it's been in healthcare committee or in human services, is that, you know, evaluations are really tough for people to do. And we really have to, we really have to work with prevention and treatment in mind. I can understand that, because when we were told that Emily had been murdered, we were told at the very, very same time that her killer would be not ever go to prison, that he would just be in a secure hospital for the rest of his life. But that turned out not to be true. You know, we believed it. And we thought, you know, we can't do anything to bring Emily back. But he's already said that he can get away with this. The state of Vermont can't do anything. There's a video the state's attorney's office can show you if you want to see it. And I think it just shows how the system without having that oversight part really has a way to escalate. One thing that I consistently heard from people in agencies was that if somebody who had conditions, like there was a violent incident, and they were out in the community with conditions, if they violated those conditions, the people in the agencies were not comfortable reporting it. They felt that it would break the trust with the client. I can get that. I know that that has to be. So there really has to be somebody else kind of providing that oversight. In our case, had there been somebody, something in place like PNP, probation and parole, to just make sure that they were following, you know, his conditions. He was going to his appointments. He wasn't reusing crack. There could have been an intervention. And had that been in place, you and I would not be talking now. And he wouldn't be sitting in jail. And he has been sitting in jail for three years for refusing to take a competency evaluation with no treatment at all. And I say that because he's a case that is not clearly defined by disabilities or mental health. I don't believe based on public record that he was diagnosed before 18. I know the substance use plays into that. But the state really doesn't have anything to do with him or any place to put him because that part of the care cycle is missing. And you might all be thinking that that really is outside of your scope because you deal with disabilities. But when we talk about legislative history with s eighty nine, and you guys can look all these up if you need me to send them to you, I will. S eighty nine did a forensic facility in '23. S ninety one had competency restoration in '23. Both of them made it through the the senate. In the house, only s eighty nine made it through. And at the last minute, this committee pulled that back for people with disabilities. They wanted to study it for a year. And when that happened, and it went back in 2024, the entire forensic facility piece was pulled out. And it still left a big gap. And and I'm begging you now, do not do that. I know that people do not want DOC in charge of this, but I don't know if we have any other choice. And if you look at what we tried to do in '23, we were going to put a wing over, take some of the beds out of the Berlin Psych Hospital, and then we found out we couldn't do it because we would lose all the Medicaid funding. And then we looked at River Valley and the same thing, and we can't afford to do that, to lose the Medicaid funding. I've heard Commissioner Murad testify that he thinks that DOC can handle the workload or that, you know, the additional caseload. Right now, they're handling them sort of. They're there, but they're not doing any justice because the state doesn't have that statute to put them in that in place for any of them. And I've often said to put a forensic facility on the grounds of the corrections facility, because it is a they're violent, violent crimes. I do, however, think if they're going to be expect it would be Southern State, I don't think that they should be in with the general population. I do think that they need to have their own location. And I think in a real world, a perfect world, we would have a campus. You know, House Corrections yesterday was talking about a report from ten, twelve years ago with an 800 bed facility and 50 bed facility for forensics because at that time, that's what the state wanted, but everybody said, oh no, we can't do something with that many beds. And I think since we've closed Waterbury, we've just done all of this piecemeal out in the community. And there's definitely benefits to community. In my work history, I have been involved with facilities that have been shutting down and transitioning to community group homes throughout the state of Connecticut. I value that community process. But I do think that there is a small amount of cases where there needs to be that perimeter that protects the public. And not only the public, but it protects the other patients and the staff. I've heard testimony in other committees from a disability rights advocate saying, just build safe rooms in all the houses for the staff. I think that's sad. I don't think that should be the answer. You know, it just is we shouldn't lock everybody up. But I do think that we need to say, hey, you know what? We have an issue. What we've been trying to do before hasn't worked. And maybe we need to compromise, and maybe we need to say to AHS, hey, you know what? You all have to to work together. And if DOC does have control of it, then hold them accountable. Put the oversights in there. Put the reports in. If it's gonna be the agencies, have that collaboration between the agencies and somebody in corrections who's doing that oversight so that you don't have those cases where people are just not complying with their treatment because a lot of it is voluntary. So I know that that's, you know, some the mental health part is not yours, but it also it's it's you've heard it's not clear cut. People overlap within that, and we need to take a look at what we've got, Or mostly what we're lacking. And I know that S 193 isn't perfect, but it's a step forward. You know, give them the timeline to come back. Give them the the the timeline to make some rules to say, hey, you know what? We don't want it to be strictly corrections. We wanna know. We want more details. But at least do something because really, you know, I've heard people testify. It's it's been kicked the can has been kicked down the road long enough. We need to do something. The problem is only getting bigger. And I really wanna take a moment to thank you. I just I know this is a bill that comes up year after year, and I know that this is the first time that you've had a victim testify. And I I really appreciate that. And I just wanna make sure that you all know that we really think we should be at the table to talk about all of these issues. Know, I've heard time and time again that we're irrelevant, and we're not. We bring the consequences of the laws that are in place and the bills that are ignored. And I think that we've deserved to have a right at at the table. And I think Emily Perry spoke in house judiciary. Her father was found not guilty by reason of insanity for murdering his her sister. That is a no that is, like, horrific. I cannot even imagine that. And the state has no place to put him once there was a plea agreement. The state washed their hands of him. It was the defense attorney who had to step up and find some place to put him. And that's just wrong on so many levels. That's missing. And next session, I think guilty by reason of insanity or guilty by mental defect or mental ill is something that needs to be considered. But I do thank you because we have been said, it has been said that we lack the knowledge and experience to understand the complexity of the liberty issues at stake. And I respectfully disagree with that. And I applaud you for letting victims be heard. And thank you. Thank you for taking this bill up and for what you do to support. And I'll take any questions if anyone has any.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you so much. And I guess I would want to say that I'm sorry if you have experienced some place in this building that said victims' voices were not relevant. That is sort of the furthest thing from how we operate here in this committee. And so I apologize on behalf of the General Assembly. That kind of statement really, I feel like that's a disservice to the remote public and to people who have experienced violence in their circles of families and friends. And so I'm sorry that that that you had that experience. Well, thank you.

[Kelly Carroll (Voices for Vermont Victims; witness)]: And I really hope s one ninety three goes forward because that gives us the ability to have a say. Just a statement, not even not even a say in the outcome, but it gives us the ability to make a statement, which is huge. Right now, we can write a written statement without any guarantee the judge will read it, and it's never included in the record. And sometimes, just like today, just that being heard means a lot to a lot of victims. And I'll tell you, Leigh Anne Billings is another victim who's been testifying. She's testified in in house judiciary. Her son was one of the victims in that double homicide in Burlington where the offender was recently this week sentenced to forty five years. And he just kept delaying with that competency evaluations. She has a very lengthy history working with people with mental health and disabilities. She had a really good suggestion that if we need to have collaboration, if it's not within DOC, and it does go to one of the agencies, that perhaps that agency should be responsible for sending a monthly update to DOC, just so that there's somebody that says, Hey, they are compliant. Yes, they are going to their required treatment meetings and medication if that's required, or not participating in drugs if that's required. So she's very knowledgeable and I would very strongly encourage you to talk to either Emily Perry or Leanne Billings Gleeson on that because they bring an interesting perspective.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. One of the things that I you know, in terms of the gaps that you identified, I think that it is fairly clear to us that there is a gap. It's how do we best achieve community safety and still balance the constitutionality of issues. And I think that maybe the third or fourth time, I agree, I'm not sure if it's the third or the fourth time, will be the time that we're able to sort of strike a balance where people can feel comfortable with both in this situation. So I feel like there's, as you already know, because you're following all this testimony and four different committees happening at the same time on this issue, and we are all taking it really seriously and all trying to make sure that we achieve the things that were lacking in your family's case and in other families' cases. It's not an easy thing do what you've been doing. And we really do acknowledge and appreciate that because it is something that I know that cannot bring your daughter back at all, but it can save somebody else's family member. And so I know I speak on behalf of the rest of the committee. Appreciate your stick to itiveness and your ability to keep coming back after us to do something about it. So thank you.

[Kelly Carroll (Voices for Vermont Victims; witness)]: And I do want to add one other comment, and I apologize. I know it's the end of the day. But some of the testimony that came out in judiciary was to encourage the use of Bennington's eye care mission care for placement. And, you know, right now there is no is no option. So like in our case, you know, before anything even happens with SNAP 193 or whatever we decide to do, and really I think we need a whole system of care because we need to get that prevention in at the beginning so that we don't have the results that that we have. But I would very strongly encourage not sending them to nursing homes. One thing I've done is I started Voices for Vermont Victims, which is just a grassroots advocacy thing. It's just pretty much me and then some other victims, and we write some letters and we talk. But I've heard from some other family members of residents at that place. And there was a friend, what I would call a forensic, and I know that's just a term that goes, that gets used loosely, but there was a patient that was able to re victimize a mom. I got an email from a daughter and I spoke with her. Her mother was abused as a child and has struggled with that her entire life, and she is is a resident. And this person was able to get access to her and didn't physically touch her, but verbally, and re traumatized her. And they did move him. They removed him from facility. I don't know if he went back to jail or if he went to one of their other facilities, but I don't think that's the right place for that. And Emily Perry testified to that when the state, when her father was done with his agreement, they said, well, you can put him in a nursing home, you can put him in a hotel in Barrie, you can send him home, which they felt put him at a high risk for regression and stuff. So we know that in our case, he's coming into the community somewhere. I'm just begging you to make it to a place where there is a fence so he cannot hurt another resident, a staff member, or somebody else out in community.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So Yeah. I don't I don't think, Kelly, that you you will see that you're not gonna see this committee recommending replacement of people who have been dangerous to be put in a nursing facility. That's not gonna happen. I

[Kelly Carroll (Voices for Vermont Victims; witness)]: don't even I don't even know how Dale got that contract through without I I I just don't know. There was so much there was a a community hearing in Bennington at the time. It's just not the right environment for, you know, residents, older residents that anyway, that's a whole other topic.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's true. We've talked a lot about that topic here. So thank you so much for being here today really appreciate it.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah. Bye bye.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alrighty. Bye bye. Okay, folks. So that will wrap up today. Tomorrow, it's Friday already. Can you believe it? Tomorrow, we're going to be hearing from some folks at Randolph Union High School on housing and homelessness and some students. So it is always great to hear from students. So we look forward to doing that. That will be after floor, and then we'll have lunch. And then we are gonna be spending some time with Katie. We're gonna have a potential vote on s two forty three, which is the language justice project. We're gonna also try to move out that resolution that we talked about today on language access, communication access. And then we are going to spend some time doing some markup of, if we're able to, to get to this bill that we've just been talking to, which I hope that we are because we kind of are under a deadline. So the only additional piece of testimony we're gonna have on January is from judge Zonet, and that is next Wednesday. So I just we haven't got the court's perspective on this, and so we want to do that. And but I I think that we can simultaneously work on this. So and, Laurie, would you would you post for tomorrow the latest version you can find on the judiciary website of of s one ninety three? I know there was a 3.1. There might be a 4.1 by now. I'm not sure. So that'll be the version that we're looking to work through. I also have what did I do with that? I have language that corrections in institutions. That's probably on their website, Laurie, too. Can you work with that committee assistant to find they have some draft language they've been working with Katie on so that we can take a look at that. And if we get that done by, let's just say, Wednesday of next week, most the rest of the time next week, that leaves us with s one ninety eight, which is the tobacco bill. That has to go to ways and means. So I've done another read through this. I've made some comments. Of, not all, but most of the rest of the stuff is not stuff that is in our jurisdiction. So I think that whenever we're gonna be able to get Jen here, I think we can get through the next version of this and then move that on to ways and means because there's a lot of fee stuff in here. So they'll need to take a look at that. And then we'll be concentrating on the bills that come back because we will have moved everything out of that we have, but we'll be concentrating on the bills that come back from the senate. Six sixty, six fifty seven will probably be on the calendar for the it'll be on notice there tomorrow, so they should vote on it on Tuesday. But they do lots of stuff. Like, they don't always get to all of the calendar, so they just continue the calendar. So just to keep an eye out for those things. And they're still working on 09:38, and they did pass out a couple of our bills. I don't know if they made any I haven't looked at the language. Excuse me, they've already been voted on in the Senate, so they'll be coming back to us. 46 got voted out. Today, on the Senate, yeah. Oh, when goes out? Was the last year's Rare Disease Advisory Council. So so that's, you know, what we're gonna do. And then, Laurie