Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Goodnight. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday morning, March twenty fifth. This morning, we're going to take up an amendment to h nine thirty seven offered by representative McGuire of Rutland City. Welcome all the Rutland representatives. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee. And there are a couple other amendments to H nine thirty seven. We're not gonna get to those today. We're gonna be postponing consideration of nine thirty seven until Friday. So we'll have some time tomorrow morning to hear from the other two sponsors. But today we'll start the amendment from Rep. McGuire.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair)]: If I may, as chair of Malay already mentioned, there's some reps in here from from Rutland County. And to me, it's it's just showing how important the accountability court is to Rutland County. It was very successful in in Chittenden County, and and our hope is just as successful down in Rutland County. And important enough, the new mayor of Rutland is sitting in and Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. I'm Donahue. New mayor of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: an FOT, friend of Tom's.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Yes. I've known Tom for

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a couple years. But, inter interestingly enough, one of the, one of mayor Donahue's big things was, public safety as far as Rutland County goes. And this this accounting accountability court will, it fits right into the public safety thing. And and and I'm gonna repeat a story real quick that I've told before and and that the accountability court would would go a long ways in doing was two or three years ago, you know, when retail theft was at its peak in in the state and in Rutland, you know, for whatever reason, the stars aligned in Rutland, and the the five the five people who were most responsible for the biggest portion, the biggest percentage of retail theft and Rutland ended up in jail all at the same time just because of what they were doing. And and retail through theft at that point dropped to pre COVID number. And with the accountability court and holding people accountable for what they've done, it it should do the same thing. But, again, welcome to the members of Rutland County and the mayor.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Just identify yourself for the record and

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: put Yeah. Absolutely. For the record, representative Eric McGuire from Rutland City, member of the Human Services Committee. Again, thank you committee for the opportunity to present this amendment. And just from the opening statement by representative Burditt, It's it's very important that we get all of this right and in in line. Vermont now has clear compelling evidence that the community accountability court model delivers exactly what our justice system needs. Faster case resolution, increased accountability, improved public safety, and meaningful access to treatment and stabilization services. The Chittenden County pilot proved this model works and works at a level unmatched by traditional criminal dockets. When the accountability court launched in Chittenden County, it faced roughly 900 cases involving about a 100 repeat offenders with five or more dockets. Within months, even as the docket expanded to nearly a thousand total cases, more than 700 were resolved, producing a clearance rate roughly three times higher than typical courts. Judiciary testimony confirmed an over 300 clearance rate, a remarkable outcome that no other Vermont Vermont court model has come close to achieving during this backlog crisis. The success was not limited to clearing cases. The pilot connected defendants directly to services, AHS staff, mental health workers and community providers were physically present in the courtroom, arranging treatment placements, housing and stabilization supports in real time. Judiciary leaders emphasize that these warm handoffs, immediate in person connection to supports was central to the docket's effectiveness. The court balanced accountability with meaningful help, rather than relying solely on jail as a devolved intervention. The pilot succeeded across stakeholders, groups, the administration, the Chittenden County State's attorneys, the special prosecutor, agency of human services, community providers, and the public defender all publicly supported the model and acknowledge its impact. When you have endorsements from all mentioned, you're looking at a consensus approach that works. The need to strengthen and replicate this model, especially for counties like Rutland. Other counties with a documented need, especially Rutland County, should have access to the same functional model that Chittenden received. The problem is clear. Rutland has not been given anything close to the Chittenden model. The Chittenden accountability court operated five days a week with consistent judicial presence, prosecutor continuity, defense consistency, and constant access to human services. That is the that was the formula that produced those exceptional results out of Chittenden. By comparison, Rutland has been given only Mondays, and every other Tuesdays, about 18 total court days over a three month period. That's not an accountability court. That's a calendar triage. Staff in Rutland have been forced to prioritize clearing cases as quickly as possible, connecting individuals to services only when they can, because the necessary structure and resources simply are not there. If Vermont wants to replicate Chittenden's outcomes, it must replicate Chittenden's model, not a diluted version of it. The judiciary has the staff to do this, but not the structure. Over the past three fiscal years, judiciary has received significant staffing increases. In FY twenty four, five judicial assistants, one superior judge, one law clerk. In f y twenty five, three superior court judges, 10 judicial assistants, 11 judicial officers, plus IT and administrative support. Despite more staff, more pre dam than pre dam levels, the system ended 2024 with over 19,000 pending cases compared with roughly 7,580 pending cases in 2019, before pandemic disruptions. In other words, the backlog is not a staffing problem, it's a structural problem. The accountability court model is the structure that works. Small group is driving a large portion of the backlog. Statewide, 44 of pending cases involve individuals with three or more open dockets, the people most likely to benefit from accountability court intervention. In Rutland County, roughly 55 individuals are responsible for three seventy open cases, targeted to this population efficiency with clear space for the rest of the system to function properly. The amendment directly targets this group, the same group that the Chittenden model successfully stabilized, monitored, and processed with with unprecedented speed. Why this amendment is necessary? The amendment to h nine thirty seven does not impose a mandate to any county. What it does is guarantee dedicated judicial time rather than fraction calendar scheduling. Require a special prosecutor or designated deputy to ensure continuing, require a lead public defender stabilizing defense participation, quantify daily court operations during the designated sixty to ninety day periods. The key feature identified by Chittenden is judge, prosecutor, and lead defense defender as essential. Mandate AHS presence so services are available instantly, not after weeks or months. Ensure cross agency coordination with DOC, Department of Mental Health, law enforcement, and Department of Human Services, replicating the full Chittenden team that embedded warm handoffs and rapid interventions, require outcome tracking on service connection, case resolution and recidivism. These are not theoretical provisions. They are the exact elements that produce success in the Chittenden County model. They are also the elements Rutland County did not receive, resulting in a partial weekend version of the model that cannot achieve the results seen elsewhere. The Chittenden pilot worked. The data is clear. The professionals who ran it agree. All counties like Rutland, where the need is acute, backlogs are heavy, and the judiciary has not implemented the the model faithfully deserves the same tool. We need support for this amendment. Why? Faster justice for victims, accountability and stabilization for defendants, reduced backlog system wide, a consistent proven framework work available statewide, a fair and equitable opportunity for counties requesting this resource. This amendment strengthens what has already worked and ensures Vermont can replicate success where it is most needed. It deserves the full support of this committee. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So any questions,

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault]: Angela? For I'm really happy that you're bringing this amendment forward. And when we heard from the folks who were involved in the Chittenden County version a month ago or six weeks or something, we heard that there were plans to roll it out in other counties. And my big concern was and I I think others shared the concern, like, will you, though? Like, will you do it the way that it worked? Or will you take something that worked, offer a watered down version to other counties and say, oh, I guess it's not working. So I don't know if you have information about why this approach, the approach you just described, the scaled down version, has been implemented and why it hasn't been the full version that worked in Chittenden County. What are the barriers there?

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: We did not receive the same level of resources that were applied to Chittenden. We did not receive the, as it was laid on out,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair)]: what do call the judge, the prosecutor, the courtroom, we didn't receive the multi agency support

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: services. We did not receive any of the resources that were applied to Chittenden. That's why it's not working.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault]: Yeah. And is that I know that the the decision the rollout in Chittenden County was driven by the governor. Is this is that is this like, does it take a legislative fix now? Or could there be executive branch action to change that?

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: No. I believe it takes a legislative fix. And we can look at it from from this perspective. This was established as a pilot program. The pilot program demonstrated clear, measurable success. The necessary next step is to quantify that proven model into statute so that it no longer is dependent on the ad hoc administrative decisions. It's consistent. You got now no more inconsistent resource allocation, or uneven implementation across counties. Embedding this model into law ensures that the structural elements that drove the pilot's success, dedicated judicial time, consistent prosecutor and defense staffing, daily docket operations, and mandatory integration of human services become statutory requirements, then to your point, optional. And that guarantees fidelity. That's what's missing. We got to keep the fidelity of the model in place consistently across the board. That way, you'll receive the outcomes as noted. Whatever the responses may be in regards to what services are available, that's not structural. It's the structural component, the fidelity of the model that drove the success in regards to Chittenden County. And my belief is every county should have the same equitable access to those resources that prove to be successful. Why is it failing in Rutland? Because we didn't get the same access to those equitable resources. What this amendment is saying is provide all of those equitable resources with a fidelity approach structurally to every county making the request for for a accountability court. Because the the the outcomes, the data did not lie. That when you run the model as laid out, that's exactly what you get in return. So that the thing like, why ship a watered down approach? This is what happens with a watered down approach. It results in unintended consequences and no measurable outcomes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Karen Dolan, Zachary Yeah.

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: So kind of following up on that question is, I think that's where I'm torn too. With the Chittenden County one, it didn't require any legislative piece of it. The governor and the administration just was able to have conversations and made it work. And so I'm trying to understand, like, what's different now. It seems like those conversations and everything could happen now. So I'm curious what conversations have been happening with the administration to try to get it to work on its own.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: The idea though is we got to allocate the resources down to Robin. That's that's what's wrong with we don't have those same resources that apply to Chittenden. That's all it comes down to. Structurally speaking, the access to resources and the structure as it was outlined within Chittenden County has not been made available to Rutland County.

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: But the company allocated them in Chittenden County and made that possible. So what's what's the difference now?

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: We haven't had it allocated down there. So I don't No. That's

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: Have there been conversations to with the administration to see if that's possible?

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: I have not had those conversations, but I see it more as coming from whether it's a judiciary or whomever it is that is responsible for providing those resources down to Rutland County are not getting them down there. Therefore, as pilots are designed, you know, we put together these pilots, we see that they have effective outcomes, the next step is to put it into a consistent practice across the board to where it becomes, you know, a model to operate off of. And in the case of the accountability court, there can be that sunset measure in there, because if it is operated on the on the fidelity and the structure as it was within Chittenden County, where we should be able to take the show on the road county by county replicating what has already been designed.

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: So has this amendment been coordinated with the administration?

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: Yeah, I have

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Okay.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: Talked to administration in regards to it. Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And we're hoping to get Jay Johnson to Yeah. Jay,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair)]: real quick. I I think you just covered what I was gonna say anyway, is the the administration was instrumental in the in the pilot program in the in Chittenden County. And, yeah, they they probably could do the same thing for Rutland County. But when it moves to another county, they would have to do it again. When it moves to another county, they'd have to do it again. We get it in statute. They they can step back from from what what what they started and let the process take care of itself, I think.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Okay. Thank you. First, I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: just wanna extend my sincere thanks to representative Wired of

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: the administration for offering the amendment. Because I think one of the things that we talk about in this room pretty much ad nauseam is the inequities between Chittenden County and the rest of the state. And if something is good for Chittenden County, I think it's good for the of the state. And I think this is a really critical piece of legislation to ensure that that equity comes to bear, and especially when it comes to ensuring that there is equal access to justice, and not just justice, but expeditious justice. So I you know, I I'm sure it's assumed, but I wanna say unequivocally for the record that I'm fully in support of the amendment as offered by rep Maguire and and look forward

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to supporting on the floor. Thank you. So I just want to question. So earlier this year, when we were talking about extending this, I understand that the governor said that I'm not gonna be able to directly quote him that there's needed to be flexibility in in the funding itself. Is this would this be making this a little less flexible, or has the administration's view for change? Or I mean, we're gonna have Jay Johnson. I could ask her that question. It may not that may not be a question for you, but

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: I would recommend asking her that question. I'm going just go back to the real point that I wanted to drive home. We've seen the positive outcomes with what came out of Chittenden. We saw a significant decrease in the case laws, backlogs. Saw significant, what do call participation in relevant services, that we have reduced recidivism, we got services on out there, we have to put this in the statue and take this show on the road and get the other counties. It's operating now in Rutland, it's been going on for two weeks. But we need to get the appropriate resources down there. That way we can see the same effects. One, reduce it to public safety, getting these backlogs taken care of, getting the services and resources to people. We need this.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, just one more thing. This started this summer when we in session, and the administration did step up and get the ball rolling. And and now that we're we're back and we're here, I think it's it's our job to to take the ball now and and run with it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. If I just

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: I agree. Like, I feel like there is a piece that this is important work. And for me, it's I feel like it's frustrating that there's this great solution, and it's coming as an amendment when the administration can move forward. They could have introduced a bill saying, let's do this. So that's the piece that's hard for me is that this cut is coming at an as amendment to something. So I I appreciate it, and I'm just trying to understand how this came to be and how this is gonna be supported.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: Yeah. I I appreciate that feedback. I appreciate that and so forth. And I like to think that while we're here now, we have an opportunity to make it to make it right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. And and I would say also that that we didn't know exactly how it was gonna roll out in Rutland. The pilot didn't end until after bills had to be proposed, drafted requests. So there's that. It's kind of a timing issue. Now we know what the Rutland accountability looks like, and so it's a good time to do this. Barbara's last question,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: I'm gonna go to Beth. And I apologize for being late. I, too, am very intrigued by making sure if we're doing something, we're doing it right and not halfway, or whatever. It seemed like in our hearing, and maybe this already came up, one thing that people kept talking about that was integral was having the devoted staff person from AHS there who had permission to break down barriers. And there were a number of examples that came up where she talked about somebody was not eligible for a service. And the fact that she was there and could work through it and have the support of the secretary made a huge difference. And I would just hope that that gets factored in, because I think without that, while the court part might go smoothly, but getting people into programs and services may not.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: I see where it come with that. But again, what made the Chittenden County one so effective is all those parties were in the courtroom. You're always going to run into cases where individuals are going to be very reluctant, or ambivalent in regards to want to engage services. Yes, those are those are going to happen. But yet, the key point was, those parties were in the courtroom collaborating, we working together in the best interest for the community and the system as well as the individual as a whole.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: Yes. And she was so part of it was having somebody high enough up be the person who gets assigned to be in the courtroom. Because you could have a local DCF person there, but they are not I mean, they're great, but they have limitations on who they can ask to do what, where she seemed to have the full authority of the secretary. And having her in the courtroom, I know if she was there every day or how that worked, but again, that made a huge difference. So it's not just having people there, it's having the right people there that have the authority to And do what they know treatment courts, they're sort of like best practices, and they're excited to come out of the federal government, of like, treatment court will work if you do these things. We don't necessarily get, I don't know if there's a national model. I remember when I first heard about accountability court looking, and there are some other states that have done it. So again, as we look for best practices and standards, Vermont style, I think that's just really important.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: Yeah, regardless, treatment court is a completely different design and the dosage mechanisms and how people are implemented into there.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: But the same thing, sometimes people do treatment courts without the resources there that are best practices, and then they don't It falls apart.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Absolutely.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: You could do something or you could do

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it right. Right. So, Coach, I guess as a last question or last word before we move on to the Defender General. Coach, unmute yourself.

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Thank you, Rutland County for bringing this amendment forward. It is about process. The Mr. Chair is gonna pick on me about this,

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: but I will

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: use a car analogy. If you want an engine to run the right way, you have to use the right parts. They have to be installed the right way. What we're talking about here is we have a really extremely well running car. So why wouldn't we replicate it exactly? Not piecemeal, not partially, but exactly. So what it's gonna take from what, you know, we've been hearing, you know, from the beginning is a collaboration at the highest level being the governor, the chief justice And the rest of the judiciary. In order to make this work. And if it's done exactly the same way we did it in Chittenden. We could expect the same results. So I am in full agreement about. Oh, practical replication, and I just needed to say that, and then thank you all for bringing that forward because, you know, that's that's the key to any working model. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks, coach. Alright. So thank you very much, Eric.

[Rep. Eric McGuire (Rutland City)]: You, Chair. Thank you, committee.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: are gonna hear next from Matt Valerio. We may not get to the other witnesses. Jay Johnson, Judge Zone A, Board of Administrators, and so on, and the Department of State's Superintendents and Sheriffs. But we will take that up to the Lord if we don't get to them right now. But, Ben, if you could join us. Thank you for coming over, Matt.

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Answered a couple of things this morning to make sure I could be here for you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We we all appreciate it. We definitely

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: appreciate it. I know this was an amendment, so it isn't something you planned. These things do happen this time of year. For your record, I'm not very I'm an offender general. Before I got over here, was listening to some of the testimony. Well, I've said before, I'm not keen on some of the branding and the like of the way these multidocket courts or the multidocket court in Chittenden County is handled. I think it kind of is a little bit misleading to maybe people in the public and even legislators who see it as a, you know, kind of a panacea for things. That having been said, there's no magic in this. The the key is we put more resources directed at a particular docket and got what you would expect results by doing that. We had more judge time, another prosecutor. My office paid an independent social worker to review what was going on there, More money for transports, dedicated AHS people, all on one particular docket. There's no surprise that you were able to resolve a whole bunch of cases. We didn't add any defenders. All I did is in Chittenden County, it's a little bit different because you have 12 staff public defenders, and then you've got your contractors. The contractors were a conundrum to some degree, because contractors tend to have contracts in multiple counties, and so they aren't sitting around waiting for the court to call if somebody on the stock that ends up being picked up at the staff office was there, and they represented the vast majority of those cases. Part of what you saw up in Chittenden County is thirty five percent of the cases were just dismissed. And then you end up with a bunch of cases that were the pure mental health cases, the competency sanity case kind of cases that and then and then and then you kind of whittled it down to a a group that ends up being directed and dealt with by by this by this group of people coming together with all these resources to resolve cases. And as a result, you got a lot of cases off the docket. Every county doesn't have the same problems. Every county doesn't have the same issues. I have no problem with this, particularly. I mean, I'd change words. I'd ask questions. But the the bottom line is, conceptually, I don't have any issue with the with the amendment. I do think and representative of why it was correct that there is no additional prosecutor in Rutland. There there's no they didn't get what Chittenden County got. It's not five days a week. It's one and a half or whatever it is. I don't know where he was getting his numbers. The docket there in Chittenden County does not or in Rutland County doesn't look at all like the Chittenden County docket looked. I met with the person who I designated as the lead attorney in Rutland, and they're talking about between thirty and forty individuals who are gonna be subject to this court. Now there's a bunch of charges connected with those 30 or 40 individuals, but in Chittenden County, you were talking about hundreds. And so, you know, I I don't know that a five day a week thing is is worthwhile. That having been said, to me, the biggest issue is no designated prosecutor. I mean, that this is where every county's gonna be different. And if I went around the state, I could tell you how I would do it in every other county. But the designated prosecutor was a big, big thing in Chittenden County, and it also would be a big thing in Rutland. I was originally advised that in Rutland, there was a grant to development mental health that would assist in doing the same work with the defense function as therapeutic works did in Chittenden County. Now the court has been in existence. You gotta remember, Chittenden County, by the way, that didn't start in July. That started, like, in December, November. Like, it was this went into place in, like, two, three weeks. And but up there, I'm able to hire Therapeutic Works to assist in getting people into treatment, finding, accessing those resources, and trusting that what DOC and AHS may be suggesting for the resolution of a case is the appropriate resolution. And clients who go into these courts, maybe as you might expect, they're not particularly trusting of the Department of Corrections and state's attorneys at NHS. When I have somebody who's an independent social worker who's working for the defense side of things saying, look. We've reviewed what they're proposing to you, and this is a this is a this is a way for you to get get clean or get healthy. It's a way for you to avoid jail. It's a way it's it's giving you an opportunity and basically doing literally, at times, bringing the client to the screening or bringing the client to the treatment. So there's a trust that they have, like, in the defense function that they're clearly not gonna have with the Department of Corrections, for example. But when our folks are saying, yeah, this is the right thing to do, that is what facilitates the resolution of those cases. The relevant mental health issue didn't end up panning out the way we thought it would. I'm unaware right now, although we're looking, to see if we can get somebody else to do that. I met on Monday with the person who is the lead on this docket in Rutland. You know, as you know, the defense tends to kinda ride the wave with these things. Everybody else decides what they're gonna do, and then defense responds. And, you know, our our response in Chittenden County was to, you know, to to quote a good old fashioned Republican, trust but verify. Anybody remember Ronald Reagan? Anyway, he was talking about nuclear weapons. We were talking about whether or not, you know, treatment is appropriate in, you know, in any particular case or the type of treatment. But that's what that's what Therapeutic Works did, and and they were all, you know, they're all licensed. They they can they even are hired by, for example, the agency human service department, DCF, to do the same do evaluations for them under contract. But that was a really important piece. And, you know, I I know that, you know, maybe some from administration didn't think that was a a cool thing to get have people checking on them. But if you talk to Zach Waite, who was the attorney, he said they were essential in making sure that Chittenden worked. You know, right now, that piece is not in place. Bottom line is conceptually, putting more resources into this docket will get us to a point where we're gonna resolve more of these cases. And these clients, are going to have the opportunity to access services that may have been delayed for many, many months. That that's the that's the key. You know, rather than doing it on a a case by case basis as the docket came up and it might take a year to resolve your case, now we're able to do it in, you know, one, two, three months. And that's a good thing. Let me there's a portion in the bill that let me let me just talk about another little bit of an issue. The about 60% of our caseload is handled by the staff of defense office, and about 40% is by the conflict contractors. In Chittenden County, the conflict contractors were a conundrum, again, because they have contracts in Franklin County and Caledonia County and Addison County. And so they're not just sitting around Chittenden County with a fixed docket like the staff office is. And I'm just but that's that's what they do. They're in a particular office, and they're there, you know, forty hour plus a week waiting for these for whatever comes their way. Those other ones are not because they're scheduling courts all over the place. Similarly, we have that situation in Rutland. What I don't know, because the numbers are so much less, you know, like, I'm talking about 30 to 40 individuals, how many of those are staff office versus contractors? I have not heard the same kind of complaints that I got in Chittenden County from the contractors. But as we go statewide with this, that if that becomes potentially more of an issue depending upon where the these cases land. Terry might know more about, you know, which are which are where at any given time. Bottom line is directing these resources is a good thing. There's a section in the reporting where it says, and I know that it's not really used, kind of in the way that in the way that it's the, you know, tracking of recidivism issue and doing it two months, six months, twelve months. You know, I don't know what first of all, you've got a really our definition of what definition of recidivism. Don't use that word. If you wanna count something, say what you wanna count. Do wanna count arrests. You wanna count new charges. You wanna count law enforcement contacts. You wanna count like, furlough violations wouldn't come in as recidivism. Probation violations may not be recidivism only because things like furlough violations and probation violations might be noncompliant with conditions, but they're not new crimes. So that if they don't fit under recidivism per se. They're like, you're not doing what we told you to do even if you're not committing a new crime. So rather than just use that I mean, you're struggling over the word, you know, what recidivism means in a separate bill here, trying to define that. I understand this was an amendment by someone not in your committee. And so, but say what you wanna count. Don't don't use that general word. Two months, six months, twelve months, you know, you might wanna knock out a few months. You know, it'll be it'll be six months by the time we figured out what happened. Two months. I also think that you should try to figure out, like, who's in charge of this? Who's keeping the who's keeping the tally? And you should designate somebody to be in charge of that. I like in in general, I you know, kind of as a on an academic level, crime research group is there for us to do this kind of thing. And they should be, in my opinion, brought in so that, you know, their, you know, statistics are an interesting thing in and of themselves. But to find what it is you wanna count, have have somebody who is not any of us do the counting, and then have that be part of the report. I'm happy to participate in doing any report that is that is required. To me, it's more about, like, functionally, what what did we do? You You know, what bumps in the road were there on the from the defendant general's side, what things went well, and the like. And so, I'm happy happy to do that. The again, this is kinda crazy words from a thing, but I I am gonna leave that alone. Probably doesn't matter. Nobody's gonna read it that quote. Nobody reads it like a lawyer reads anything anyway. So, you know, we represent these clients anyway. The biggest thing that happens with us when we designate particular people to do particular things, it takes them away from doing other things. And I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing if you are getting, you know, volume kind of bang for your buck like we did in Chittenden County. But in Chittenden County, we had I designated the managing attorney and one of the more experienced attorneys to do the work. Joshua Harris, the managing attorney, he was also it's sort of over Christmas. A lot of this was going on. He had time off, and then the second person stepped in. But, you know, we're talking one out of 12 at any given time doing the work. In other counties, you know, as you go around statewide, and I've said this, I think, before when I classified about it, it's gonna look very different because sometimes we only have one lawyer in a county or two lawyers in accounting. So it takes a you know, basically, nothing else is gonna get done if you got a one lawyer accounting and you've got, you know, one of these multi docket courts running, unless I do something else, like designated contractor, that kind of thing. But it like like we've said all along, all these are it's gonna look very different. They're being different in every county. The key is that you need some of these elements to be available. You know, Addison would look very different from Lemoyle and Caledonia and Chittenden and the like. The the only other thing I kind of wondered about is page two, line five. Every county that asks for a community accountability court should have access to the program. Who's asking? I just wanna know how how does it start? This is line five.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. We probably have a slightly different version than you, but that's fine. It's, like, line 11 for us.

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But but it's still pretty funny to ask for community accountability.

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Yeah. This is the one I got last night. In any event, you know, if if I don't know how it starts. We, as I said, we tend to be responsive. We're we are nimble because of the way our contract system works. And as though if somebody says, Oh, we're gonna do Washington County, well, then I deal with my people in Washington County and see how we're gonna respond to whatever goes on there. Is this the kind of thing, you know, is is how how how does it start? I don't know. I I don't know if it's I mean, my guess is you have to have some consensus by all of the players. Really, you don't need consensus from us because we're there anyway. But you're going to have to have the, you know, state's attorneys who wanna do it, but I don't know if it's a is it a political thing? Is it, you know, this representative goes by and say, hey. My county wants accountability court. So now we're I don't I don't know how I don't know how it would work. Just it'd be good to kinda understand how that would work. You bet I do.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So any questions for for Matt? No questions? No. This is very helpful. Perspective on this.

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: All right, thanks. See you next time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, actually, let me just ask you. I want to make sure I'm clear on one thing. As far as one of the So designated prosecutor, the AHS availability there, but also that separate, like you had therapeutic works. That's also in your view of one of the other requirements there.

[Matthew Valerio (Vermont Defender General)]: Well, it is from my side. Right. You know, we put it in it's important for the defense to actually do their job, not just go along with everybody. So, you know, there are times when and if you ask again, if you ask the prosecutor, if you ask Zachary whether therapeutic works was beneficial in getting these people into treatment, notwithstanding anything that AHS and PFC did, he would say absolutely yes. Did they sometimes question what some plan was? Yes. Did they work it out? Sure. And we moved on. But we can't always know because for example, just for example, Vermont doesn't have, like, an an in state residential co treatment facility for co occurring disorders. We have to send people to New Hampshire to do that. So AHS may want might wanna do some particular thing, but we don't have a place to put them here. Therapeutic works works out those details to get them into a program in New Hampshire that deals with those particular issues. We would not know as lawyers I mean, some of them might because they, you know, they've worked with this population enough, but we would not be there to be you know, provide professional expertise about whether that is appropriate or not. A company or business like Therapeutic Works does do that. And part of the job of the defense function is to question what's going on with the prosecution and the Department of Corrections to make sure that the client is getting what they need, not just what the other side wants. And so to me, you're not doing your job if you don't do that. You know, we do this on a case by case basis regularly. The difference here is it was a consolidated docket, and we're handling them all at once in a relatively short period of time. So, you know, I I think that anybody who worked day to day in that court saw the benefit of that. Not with not that didn't didn't include the now that we've all agreed, we're we're you know, we have clients who have difficulty, like, getting to court. How are they gonna get to, like, Williston for a screening or how or a treatment or whatever? So therapeutic works would actually get them there, physically drive them there. You know? It is as simple as I can't you know, I'm transient. I might be homeless, couch surfing. I can't get my butt to court. How am I gonna get my butt to wherever it needs to be to get treatment or whatever? And these folks, that's part of social work, getting people where they need to be so they can get what they need to get. And, you know, the the mere court order doesn't do it. I mean, people have been on conditions of at least for, you know, two years and couldn't comply with those. How would they comply with these any better unless you had somebody facilitating that, assisting them, making sure they get there? These are all of the pieces that kind of went together to make that part work. Now long long term success remains to be seen about, you know, recidivism and the like, and the jury's still out on that stuff. Bottom line is at least we get them in the door. Right? And that's what, you know, the comfort level with the defense team is what assisted in, you know, getting these folks a chance to do what they could do to try to help themselves. Appreciate that. All right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I appreciate that. Thank you, Matt. And I don't want to shortchange you, Jay. Are you available tomorrow morning? Yes. Yeah. Because we probably also would appreciate five minutes since we're gonna be on the floor for about ten hours. Sure. Having an extra five minutes right now might be So we're adjourned until tomorrow at