Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, welcome back to Human Services. So our first order of business is to take a look at the most recent version of H. Two forty three. I know you're surprised, right?

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: like to keep you all guessing, that's my job. Katie, could you join us? At some point, Michael Chernick is gonna be popping in or sending us something, Laurie. Just let me know when he does. I haven't seen anything yet on our resolution on communication from yesterday. So two forty three, just to remind you is the bill about the language justice project. And Ray's been working with Katie on an amendment to the bill. And so thank you. And it's on our webpage.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thanks. Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Counsel for the record. Good afternoon. It's nice to see everyone. Yes,

[Esme Cole (Member)]: we You should have a name

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know it's all good. We know you're downstairs working on our bills and a bunch of other things.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is draft 1.1. There were no changes in the findings section. I don't know if you want me to go through those or if you just wanna look at the new language.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think the new language is fine. It's just the findings about Vermont.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So this section too is new. It says that in fiscal year twenty seven, the Office of Racial Equity in consultation with the Department of Public Safety's Division of Emergency Management shall contract with the Vermont Language Justice Project to prepare prepare informational materials at the request of state agencies and departments as needed to assist Vermonters who speak languages other than English in the event of a disease outbreak, natural disaster or other public health emergency, including ongoing personal and public health information. The Department of Buildings and General Services shall maintain the Vermont Language Justice Project on the state's list of approved contractors.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so what the intent is here is to, one, get the organization on the list of the approved state contractors so other departments can more easily contract with them. And you recall, sort of the original intent of this was to have resources devoted to the health department so that they could contract with them. And we learned during testimony that BDH actually has an MOU with the Office of Racial Equity, and they can access the resources, the financial resources at the Office of Racial Equity. And they testified that they had, I think, about $1,800,000 still remaining in their fund to do translation services such as this. And so we took out the 150,000 that was in the bill originally. But it became clear that the Language Justice Project needed assistance to understand the state's contracting process and to get on that list. And so what this does is to provide them that assistance. And it makes a positive statement about using this justice project for the state's translation services, which the state has been using, but just to make it clear that they're available and how other departments would access that.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This putting in statute or recommending that someone be on

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: the list of approved contractors, is that something we've

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Done before? Done before. Not since I've been here.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But I'll just say, given that this organization, we heard in testimony that they're the only ones in the country right now and they're actually being contracted by other states to do similar work and they have really quick turnaround time, I think it bears kind of spelling it out in, because we've heard through other testimony and other divisions and departments across state government that the procurement process is really lengthy and complicated, so this would just avoid that process and allow quick information with quick turnaround time and quick access to this organization that is uniquely positioned to do this work. And I'll just say one more thing, sorry, that I really hope that the health department, I encourage the department to be really thinking about because just in the last several months, just in the session, there's been opportunities for them to use this organization. I know that because of the procurement process has been a little bit more challenging, but hopefully with this moving forward and them getting on the contractor list, some of the things that we've passed out of this committee should have been prioritized for translation for those communities that they haven't had access to. So hopefully this will make that process a lot more seamless.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, so along these lines, I just have a question. Are we opening doors for other potential legislation to come in and say, let's put these folks on the short list? Do we need to say something more about the fact that they are the only service available? Some just to to kind of set it up.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This doesn't automatically get them on the list.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: It doesn't automatically.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, it does not. This just instructs the BGS to assist them in getting on the list. So they still have to meet the qualifications. Do you think It differently,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: seems to know what it says there

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: on the list the last time

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think shall maintain, important If you wanted to assist, we could say shall assist the Vermont Language Justice Project accessing or or being listed from approved contractors list, something like that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just I've got everybody, so this is Okay. Just

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: okay. I think me. I just wanna be very clear that I'm totally in support of this. It's not like I'm trying to blockade it or anything. Just don't wanna open a door.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It does say that. It does say that.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. That's the concern that I had. Has no reflection on this organization and their work is needed, but I don't know what the requirements are to be on that list. And I just wouldn't wanna see it shortcutted for organizations that perhaps are not as embedded already or used by state resources to suddenly be able to be put on.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that's fair. Esme.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, I'm thinking about the important piece of this is if, well, one of the important pieces is if that state were wanting to put out a bid for contracts, that that could still happen and take place because preempting that obviously would be the type of precedent that I think Rutbishop and Rutbisty is concerned about. But obviously the administrative barriers that exist today, that is a concern that needs to be addressed as well. So we're gonna have to straighten that balance through this language

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: of how do we move

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that very

[Esme Cole (Member)]: well. Still, if some in the future, even though we heard testimony about how effective this particular service is based on their experience here in Vermont, being based in Vermont too. If there were to be an ask to the greater scene, basically, that we could consider those asks as well in the future. But that doesn't exist right now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think I understood what you said. I'm not sure. This does not force anybody to contract with them. Precisely. There could be other entities that make their self-

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And it could

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: still be a procurement process if the state chooses that if they feel like, so this would just put them on a list of approved contractors that if the state felt like they could provide the service that they would be exempt from the procurement process and they could access those services a lot quicker. Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You wouldn't have to go through the whole RFP process, Yeah.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: And in terms of deciding who results on that list, speaking to the question of precedent, the process of who is on that list is determined by BGS. BGS, basically. This is our input based on testimony that BGS should incorporate this group in the process.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To assist them in doing. I think that it is inappropriate to say to assist them in Getting on. Getting on the list.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I think that's I like that better. Yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Just for example, I mean, I don't know what the requirements are, but the requirement to make this up is that to be on the approved list, need to be an organization that is audited annually, just to make that up. I don't think we wanna circumvent what may be very valid concerns in in a process. So very much in favor of the language that says that we encourage or we ask that they support their inclusion, but just hesitant to direct any particular organization because in this committee, this day, we find them to be a worthy organization in a different committee on a different day in a different session. We don't know who they may or may not want to put up with.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: How do folks feel about this change?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Can we make it a little bit larger? Yes.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it reads the Department of Buildings Department of Buildings and General Services shall assist the Vermont Language Justice Project in being named to the state's list of approved contractors.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's fine with me, but I'm just checking to see if it's fine with other people. It means they have to go through the process.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, there's some level of process.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, there is level of process. Yeah, we're not saying you must automatically name any contractor.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Okay, good. I think it's good.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You okay, Esme?

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Oh yeah, I'm good. I was looking at Rutland to make sure he was good too, because I think the idea of the concept is very much a valid one, thinking about the future. But I totally, I think this does look good.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And that was all that was changed from the original. So our clerk has left. He'll be back. Then is Rep Steady Zon? Okay. So when the clerk comes back, are people comfortable? Do you have any questions? People comfortable with a vote on this at this point in time? Looking all around? Okay. All right. So when the clerk comes back, we'll do that. My brother has to go through editing, but that is one more thing off of our list. Nice try. You want a substitute for representing noise? As soon as you lose, that's all I can say. Okay, so let us move. So Katie, as you know, because you've been making the rounds on S-one 193, you were the four committees working on this simultaneously. And we're going to have a joint meeting next week so that you and Eric don't have to do this twice to give us sort of the latest rendition of what's come out of judiciary. And so we can make our sort of official recommendations. But we have been having a lot of testimony and quite a bit of discussion around the things that we wanna see changed, but we don't exactly know what the final version out of judiciary looks like. And some of this might be in Eric's purview and some of it might be in yours, but in terms of our recommendations. Have a copy of what corrections and institution has done so far. So just to give you some sense of where our committee is landing on this is that in somehow to incorporate in here, we don't have language or anything yet, that we want to probably in that report that comes back to add to the things that they report on the feasibility of expanding Act two forty eight to cover other individuals with cognitive disabilities, including brain injury and dementia. As one item, we think that that's a more appropriate route for people with those disabilities. And then the other major thing is, we agree that the clinical services should not be provided by DOC. So that seems to be the way things are moving in other places as well. So, we're going to try to work hand in hand with corrections and institutions so that the bill doesn't have to come here, but that we can make our adjustments as it's moving through that committee. And then we'll So we might have slightly different versions of what they would say on the clinical side of things. And so we'll have to work with corrections and institutions on what that language is. I think that what I'll try to do is to have a member from here downstairs while they're discussing that so that our point of view can be brought up in that conversation. You don't have to do things twice, I guess, is because we realize that the clock is running on this as well. And we are going to recommend that people with IBD and those other cognitive disabilities not be included. So that would be the eligible populations.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Qualifying conditions.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Qualifying conditions, yeah. At this time, I guess we should say. I think what we're really trying to propose is that since this is new, that they start with folks where the primary issues have been, which is folks who have had mental health challenges, and that they work through the process and then sort of a wait and see attitude about this, particularly since we have Act two forty eight. And we are saying that we would be open to them considering expanding Act two forty eight, given they have reported that the numbers of people are very, very small. And I don't know how the administration is going feel about that. But the other thing we had discussion with, We had representative Rachelson joined us this morning for our discussion, and that's in the sort of very beginning where it talks about remanding. It said to the Commissioner of Corrections, and then they tried Agency of Human Services. And I know that DMH has said that that's, not appropriate, and it should be the DOC. Given the changes that are being made downstairs, it doesn't it, end If our changes are agreed to, it would really leave only DMH. So we're wondering if that should say DMH at this point in time. So it's a question mark for consideration. And while commissioner has testified that it shouldn't be AHS because nobody can be remanded to them, well, that's true under current law, but we can change the law. So if for some reason this ends up coming out with more than one population, we believe it should be AHS. So that's the sort of general idea around that. We are in agreement that the health care services provided by WellPath shouldn't be the clinical data. It should be separately run, which I think seems consistent with what Corrections and Institutions is doing. I don't think we reached agreement about this. So I'm just gonna put this out for question mark to committee members. I don't wanna state it as something that we've decided on because we didn't really say that. But whether due to the nature of needing to provide security that it could be that a separate facility, on the grounds of a correctional institution that already has the secure perimeter. Personally am okay with that, but I didn't know if other people were. So I didn't wanna state that as a committee decision. What do other people think about that?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Think if there's some, it's not ideal, there's some practical sense of having it that way. I'm comfortable with that being considered.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Maybe that's the way it's phrased, that it could be considered. We heard testimony from AHS, from the various commissioners that I wrote down, sorry, the term. The governor's counsel, Ms. Johnson, said that it should be a suitable clinical setting. Those were her words. We just disagree that DOC is a suitable clinical setting. And I actually like those words, suitable clinical setting. I don't know if that's able to get worked in there someplace. But I think that those are good

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: words.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm going to rephrase the question. Do you have strong objections given that it needs to be a secure setting, not in a facility, but on the grounds of an existing facility that has space where the perimeter is already secured. And there may be other buildings. I'm not familiar enough with the correctional facilities to know if there are other buildings on some of those sites. I know somebody had talked about St. John's Bury at one point in time. This isn't saying it has to be, but saying that we would I don't wanna say find it acceptable, but it would be not objectionable.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Or considered one of several options. If all the options are weighed, and that appears to be the most appropriate, at least on feedback from experts.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So consideration could be given too, or something less, along that line? Yeah,

[Esme Cole (Member)]: narrowing it down to that being the sole thing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, yeah, I'm not saying that it has to be, but So I guess this would be It may state that already.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I was thinking I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: read somewhere about in the

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I remember

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: entity, stand alone facility.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Out of sight and out of hearing is what I remember seeing.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's legislative intent language that house corrections and institutions put together that says DOC can't operate or staff a forensic facility with the exception that if there is a stand alone forensic facility on the grounds of a correctional facility that DOC could provide security along that outside perimeter of the forensic facility. And there's conversation about maybe moving that well, either maybe moving that into statute or having it in both places as legislative intent and in the statute itself.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Do they have another draft besides

[Esme Cole (Member)]: the four thirty draft?

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does it start with legislative intent up trap? It does. Yeah, I think that's the most recent draft. Okay. Yeah, 2.1. Yeah. Yeah.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: So the section Y1 sort of research.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So maybe it's helpful you might already know this, but just to tell you a little bit about what the plan is with this language, because obviously this is not a language for a bill. So House Corrections and Institutions has talked about removing some sections of the bill if and when they get the bill. So they know that they would like to take out the rulemaking section. They would like to take out the interim report because instead they have two check ins on the feasibility plan in August and November. They don't feel like they need a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: written report in October. It's only justice oversight. Correct? Yep.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then there is an annual report about that's section four a in the underlying bill about how many people are being served at the forensic facility, and that sort of feels premature at this point. So the idea is to take that section out too. Section four is the section that has that list of clinical components in subsection B. So as you can see, they've been sort of working on that language. But we can't really put everything together until we see what House Judiciary is going to do. So this package of sections is sort of a placeholder until we can integrate those. I will say House Corrections and Institutions has had a conversation about the definition of forensic facility. Sorry. And they have decided they do not like the definition that is in the bill that came over from the Senate. We looked at old acts that dealt with a forensic facility. I'm so sorry. It's probably going through. And they found one that they liked. It cannot be just plunked into a new draft because it doesn't comport with some of the decisions that are being made. But one of the key aspects of it is that the forensic facility would be licensed as a therapeutic community residence, which is a license type that Dale has. It doesn't mean that the population it serves has to be Dale's population, but Dale would do the licensing for the facility. So that is something that I feel like protections and institutions seems to be coalescing around. But because we don't have other decisions made, I haven't drafted it up yet.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I made Chair Emmons aware of the fact that there's certain requirements around therapeutic community residences that this facility would not meet. So secure being one of them. People need to be able to essentially come and go. And that is not the case for this facility. So it might be helpful if they continue along that line. Mean, one of us will be downstairs in the room when they're having these discussions next week about actual language when they have possession of the bill. But somebody should be looking at the regulations around TCRs because it would definitely not qualify as a TCR. Somebody in licensing and protection could provide that testimony if they're interested. That's why I said the use of that particular term, if they were intending that actually be licensed in that way, then there would be an issue. And at one point, just said, well, we were just using this as a term. And I'm like, well, it has real meaning in rules. They definitely are not locked facilities. And the other thing is that according to regulation, or I call them regulations because that's what we do, but they are not supposed to be ongoing in nature. So they're supposed to be something that is time limited. Although the reality is that we have folks who have lived in TCRs for very long periods of time. So that's something that I think it would be important for them not to hear from us, but to hear from Dale, would something like this meet the requirements of a TCR? I don't think that it does, but they should hear directly from Dale. So other things that might be helpful for us to know, Katie, since you've been involved in this session Well, more than

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I spent an afternoon with health care, and I think that they were sort of having some of the same conversations that this committee sounds like you had around the appropriate point person to lead or operate this type of facility. Same conversation came up about AHS, and AHS currently doesn't have custody of anyone. There's some conversation of AHS sort of, for lack of a better word, kind of playing traffic controller and ensuring that the right commissioner is overseeing the right person within a forensic facility. That didn't progress very far, but that was mentioned. Trying to think what else. There was some concern in healthcare. I feel funny saying that's

[Esme Cole (Member)]: something here. No, that's okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Rebecca was welcome to China.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was some concern that actually in healthcare, and I would say in corrections and institutions too, to be very specific to make sure if this responsibility was assigned to AHS, that AHS couldn't give it to Department of Corrections, that it would be very clear that the committees with the jurisdiction and the appropriate expertise would have custody of individuals in the forensic facility. So that has been a big part of the conversation. A piece of the conversation that corrections and institutions wants to get to, and I think they haven't quite gotten there yet, is the bill currently talks about monitoring people after they leave the forensic facility. It sounds like they're clear that they don't want DOC to have that responsibility, but it seems unclear what exactly that would look like and who would have that responsibility at this point.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so that's one of the things in having discussions among chairs that honestly is the sort of the crux of everything and it's not even dealt with in the bill, which is what happens when somebody's status stabilizes. So they're taking their medication, they're doing their therapy, they've become quote unquote, not dangerous, but then they leave the facility and they stop taking their medication and they don't have stable residential and something happens. And right now, the only people who have ongoing residential and clinical supervision are people who are under commitment to act two forty eight. And Department of Mental Health was very clear, I'm sure both in healthcare and they were here and probably were downstairs, that once somebody's mental health is stable, that they have no responsibility essentially. And we actually want to change that. So if someone is stable, they have had mental health challenges, and they are determined able to leave this forensic facility, we actually do want the Department of Mental Health to be required to follow them and provide supervision over residential and clinical.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could I ask a clarifying question? For DMH, was there testimony related to what currently happens with civil commitment because the person no longer meets the statutory level of being a person in need of treatment? Okay. So in my mind, that feels a little bit bifurcated from the forensic facility. Not to say that there shouldn't be monitoring one way or the other. But I think the reason DMH testified that way is because if somebody is no longer make it's all tied to medical need for civil commitment and not a propensity for violence as it would be with the forensic facility. So I think once that person doesn't meet a medical need anymore, DMH no longer has custody of that person or responsibility for that person. And for the forensic facility, something slightly different is being considered.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We agree that we understand that that's the way it exists right now.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what we're saying is that for at least a period of time, if somebody has been determined by the court and goes through the process that they are not somebody who is going to regain confidence, but they're no longer a danger, that they have the ability to be released from the facility. So separate and apart from DMH's civil commitment process. Correct. Okay, I didn't follow that. Yes, correct. So it's not a civil commitment process, but it's a requirement for them to provide residential and clinical supervision. And we put a period of time in there or something so that it's not. But right now, that is the real link in the system that doesn't exist once somebody is released from a correctional facility of any type, whether it's this new forensic facility or it's a current correctional facility.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: By damage. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. At this point in time, we're talking about people who were there on account of their mental illness. Yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm confused.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: We're speaking about like this small population are currently residing inside the correctional facility because currently at this time, they are not competent to stand trial. They've committed a rather egregious offense. And what I'm hearing from you is it sounds like if that egregious offense has been committed, they're at the forensics facility, but if they're following their treatment plan, we need to provide them places to step down to. So somebody commits egregious offense of murder. If their competency is restored to stand trial, then whatever sentencing may come on out of that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that takes place.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: That's what it seems to me, we're attempting to mix saltwater with freshwater. Again, this bill is strictly designed as placement forensics. It's not mental health treatment. So I'm kind of-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The bill is really about community safety. I mean, that's what we heard testimony, don't worry, no word yet. It's about community safety. The piece that is missing for community safety is there is no mechanism for supervision. If somebody continues to be, what's the term in here? Restorable. Not restorable. Thank you. If they're not restorable they but their mental health is stable. So the court's gonna make that decision. So there's gonna be the professional evaluations and all that. So if the court agrees and the evaluator agrees that the person's not restorable, but their mental health is stable, and at that point in time, they're not considered dangerous because they're essentially receiving supervision to follow their medication regime and to get whatever therapy that they get and all that. So right at that point in time, they're considered not to be dangerous. So they're released. They're released. They walk down the street. Three weeks later, they're not taking their medication. They don't have a safe place to live. They commit another crime. That's the piece of community safety that is not addressed in this bill. That is actually the crux of what the complaints are in the community. That is the piece that is missing. And so what I am suggesting, and this is after talking with Chair Black and the other chairs, is that there is a process by which DMH is required to, for some period of time, to follow that individual once they've been released to do their best to ensure that they continue to take their medication, they continue to not be a danger to other people, and that period. So it's not a civil commitment per se. And probably by and large, this would have to be voluntary to some nature. I don't know if that'd be something judiciary would have to answer that question. It's not mixing salt and fresh water in terms of urinality. It's trying to do what the community is requesting, which is if they're not gonna be held in the facility and they're going to be released, that there's some sense of assurance that the state is doing its best to assure that these people continue to not be dangerous. And we don't do that if we just let them go. And that's what's happening now. And that's when people commit the additional crime. So I don't know what it's called, Katie. And I don't know what the legal terms are for it, but that's the gap that we're trying to fill.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you describe a little bit more what that would look like? So you said residential and clinical services. Would it be a case manager? Would it be providing the housing? I think that would just be helpful to draft something if I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I can tell you what I think would be good practice. It would be providing the housing case management and clinical services.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: So the question for me then is if this person had been that's so tricky. So when this person committed the crime that came under the auspices of DFC, or the legal system, judgment of the legal system, and part of their, and they were deemed competent through services that had been provided. And then once they then who would be providing the serve under whose auspices would

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: confident they're going through the judicial system, and they're they're having a trial, and they're Right. Being found guilty or not guilty.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: So when that's all over and that they they're guilty or not guilty, but they're still released into the community under whose office

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they're guilty, found they're free to go. Right. If they're found guilty, they're gonna stay in jail.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: They're gonna stay in jail. So you're talking about the not guilty ones?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're talking about the not guilty by reason of insanity and the and the, incompetent to stand trial. And the second piece of that, not restorable.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Not restorable. So and those folks remain under the would then be under the auspices or the oversight of

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: not DOC. DMAMA.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For people with a mental illness.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Clear.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, you were following it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Also clarifying. If someone has a mental illness or if they have developmental disability and they are restored, they would then go into the DOC, it's awaiting trial, etcetera, if they're being held without bail.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If they're restored during this process of being in the forensic facility, I suspect they would stay in the forensic facility pending their trial situation. The law part then takes over. And where they might be placed would probably depend upon staffing, to be perfectly where they have the staff. But if they've been determined to have regained competency- Then it's out of our kind It's out of our purview at that Yeah. Point in It goes through a judicial Yeah.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: So,

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: sorry, but may-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You don't need to apologize. It's complicated.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Trying to understand questions about them if a person is they're deemed competent, but they're not

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: yet charged. And so they're No. They're charged first.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: They're charged, but they're not convicted. I'm sorry. Yeah. Charged, but not convicted. So if they're charged, then there it goes. It's too I can't hang up to it. Alright. Share mine. I'll I'll be back.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. It

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: could it could be a waiting trial for some time, even between the point of restoration of competency and the trial date. And I guess, we wanna provide input on where a person should stay, particularly individuals that have IBD? Is it okay if they go into one of the correctional facilities? You said they may stay in a forensic facility, but they may not.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They may not, yeah.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, so that's my question. What rights do those people have if they're not yet convicted but they're charged?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If they're charged and now their competency has been restored, regardless of their disability, regardless of their diagnosis, if their competency has been restored, to be honest with you, I don't know the exact judicial process that takes place other than that they will then be brought back to court. And I'm sure they will be represented. And there'll be some other defense that is, somebody will challenge competency, I'm sure. All of that will play out. Where they are held in the meantime is an open question. I don't know the answer to that question. And that is maybe something that we should add to the list of things that they come back and tell us, what their intent would be, whether somebody who's restored to competency stays at the forensic facility or they are then transferred to the correctional facility. I don't know.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think in particular for the population that we've been talking about most in this committee, some of intellectual disability or cognitive impairment, because we've also spoken about the fact that it is a limited restoration. It's restoration of competency for the purpose of the trial.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, The purpose is on participating in their defense.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, so I can envision that the correctional setting, not necessarily an appropriate place for them to be while they await trial.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That may not be, my guess is that's gonna be a judge's decision, ours. And that's probably where it should be. So you get a sense of where our discussions have-

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Taking careful notes. And gone on. Could I ask, are you looking for a work product at this point? Are you waiting to sort of hear where the conversation goes on Wednesday?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that it's better for us to hear the full presentation of what comes out of judiciary. And the reason I wanted to have a joint meeting was not only to save you and Eric from having to do the same thing twice, but also so that both of our committees could hear what each one of us asked in terms of questions. I thought that that would be helpful and Chair Emmons agreed. So that's why we're gonna do this jointly. So I would say it would be after that. And we have you on Wednesday, I think. Think we have you on Wednesday. Afternoon. Yeah. To do that, same Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Do you wanna wait till then? You had a point we were discussing this morning about the one, two, three, four and whether four should be three and three should be four. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Would be. Yeah. It was in drafting. We just thought it was confusing in the page one of I don't have it right here.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's here someplace. The number of beds comes before any of these responsible for operating?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Under starting No, it's talking about eligibility. It's talking about in section one. So you need to have one, two, and four. And then three is you're not currently under so it seemed like that should be last.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure what we

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Starting on line 14, it's this has to be the case and this,

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but not this. The definition?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Is the section for

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So it's this, this, not this, but So should number three be not less? So it's one, two

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We just gotta be less confused.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And is one

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and then three.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But not four, by switching three and four. That's all.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Well, I know that they're looking at changing the definition altogether, so I'm not

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sure Okay. What it

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So noted.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, yeah, I mean, this is going to be a dancing act, frankly, of trying to figure out We're trying to do this so that our committee doesn't have to take possession of it to move it along. If that becomes untenable, both for you corrections and institutions and for us, then we may have to bag that plan and have them move it through as quickly as possible. And then we'll move it through as quickly as possible. But we're trying to avoid that. And, you know, we're not gonna deal with any of the legal stuff around, you know, what? The constitutional stuff. That's not our stuff. But that doesn't mean that we still wouldn't need to have you end Eric, because I don't know, some things may cross over. I don't know. But that's sort of the sense. We want to make sure that it's appropriate clinical supervision. And then clinical supervision definitely shouldn't be with DOC. And I think we're along the same lines as what I've seen so far, what we've shared with the committee here that corrections and institutions is generally doing. I didn't necessarily agree with the removal of the regs, but I mean the rules, but it did make sense after I understood like, okay, well, we haven't established a facility yet. They will need to do that in the next iteration of that.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then you're bringing up this licensing issue. And now I'm sitting

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: here wondering, how is it

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna be licensed? And can we waive some of the requirements of a TCR? Are we creating a whole new type of licensing structure and who is going to do the licensure. So there are some issues in the back of my mind that I'm trying to think how those could be worked through.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was going to say independent, but nothing is independent in the state really. It's all under AHS. But those folks act independent from corrections. Would there be requirements to waive certain provisions of the current rules that are in effect? Possibly. But that's why I think they need to hear from licensing and protection people downstairs. But there probably does need to be some level of licensure of some sort that would make sense.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm trying to think most other facilities are regulated. So it would be sort of an outlier not to have some Yeah, type of yeah. Okay, so that's something that I don't think has really been on anyone's radar specifically.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I don't think so.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Other things, committee members, that we should bring up with Katie, based on our conversations and testimony? Okay. All right. Okay. So we just wanted to kind of bring you up to date on where

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we're at. Taking a lot of testimony. And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: obviously, because we all come at this from slightly different perspectives based upon our jurisdiction and our familiarity with the community services that are available and have been. So appreciate your patience with us. It's hard. So we're going to move back to 02:43 now, folks. And Representative Steady, do you want to vote on 02:43? If you do, you'll need to come back into the room. And I don't know where representative McGill went. She's at looks like she was on a meeting or something. I don't know.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Think she's at her computer with her.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Did you see representative McGill out there by any chance? Did she push you in the entrance way? Room. No? No? Okay.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are no changes on your draft. That's 2.1.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Brenda was gonna substitute for you. I mean, Eric was recruiting her to substitute for you. She said, No, no, no, no substitute for Dan.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: That's true. On God experience.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It was an opportunity for job experience. No question about that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Represent Steady, do you wanna vote on this bill? Okay. Katie, 2.1, you said? Okay. Does anybody need to see that up on the screen? Everybody remember what it was? The change that we made was just to say that they shall assist? Yep. I Okay. Would entertain a motion to will you report this on the floor? I would entertain a motion to approve S two forty three version 2.1. I'll make a motion. Okay. Is there any further discussion or questions? Okay. Will the clerk please call the roll?

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

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

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Representative Maguire? Yes. Representative McGill? Representative Nielsen? Representative Illinois?

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Yes. Representative Steady? Representative Wood? Yes. Eight.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Zero. And representative, you're on final, we'll report it.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 4, instrument.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 80. 4. No. 3.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 6046.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: These are numbers. The record. Get your info.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was I'm usually adding a number. Yes. Because I would I was added up to 12. Okay. And I let me just check my email. I don't believe that we have received anything from mister Chernick, but let me double check. They have to do that on Monday.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Thank you. You too.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean Tuesday, yeah. Okay, 02:30. Okay. Oh, yeah. He will be here at 02:30. Thank you, Katie. Yep, you're welcome.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Have a good weekend.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so we can