Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi. All right. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday afternoon, April fourteenth. We have some special guests here today. And is it okay for you to just kind of introduce the group? Sure. I'm JoAnnriano. I'll just sit over there and this is the Ormo Village School Student Council and maybe we'll just introduce themselves, say their name, what grade they're in. I'm JoAnn I'm sister. Alright, excellent. And then we have at the end here, if you could introduce yourself. I'm Brian Hilson, great teacher at the moment. Okay, great.

[Angela Arsenault]: I'm Janelle, I'm Fatima.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Okay, excellent. Welcome all of you, and I

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: hope you've had a good day in the state's cap. So we're gonna get started. We're looking at a bill continuing our testimony on Test 193, an act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons. And we're gonna start with Doctor. Commissioner of the Department of Disabilities, Ageing and Independent Living. Thank you so much for

[Barbara Rachelson]: your flexibility and for being here. Good to be here. What a great day.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Glad I came in a few minutes early because I could be here.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes, absolutely. We like visiting. Makes

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: me feel good about the future. So

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: identify yourself.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: I'm Doctor. Jill Bowen. I'm the Commissioner for the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living. Dale. So I am here to talk with you about the forensic facility. Specific focus for us is people with cognitive challenges, people with developmental disabilities. There are others who might be in this situation, people with traumatic brain injury, dementia, etc. For some of those folks, they may be in a position where there's a criminal justice intercept, and they may have been accused of committing a crime serious enough to reach the level of what is in the current bill that's before you. Our position at Dale aligns with our agency of human services. You may have heard from some of our sister or other departments. We are all one agency. In addition to being the commissioner of Dale, I'm a member of the executive leadership team for the Agency of Human Services. So there's a lot of conversation that has gone on related to this particular bill. So I want to make a statement that it's very important for us at this state to recognize that our constituents, the people that we serve, are both individuals who are challenged with certain different scenarios. In Dale, if the people with any sort of disability, there is a focus on older Vermonters and on those with developmental disabilities. But we also have a responsibility to the public and the safety of the public simultaneously. So easy peasy, right? Simultaneously means that there are, looks like a Venn diagram, and some of the needs of individuals and some of the needs of the public don't always overlap. But this is a place where I think maybe we do find some place where we have some overlap in this bill. So happy to answer any questions I have with me.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank

[Angela Arsenault]: you so much for being here. I'm wondering if Dan has any concerns or what your thoughts are on placing so much of this work within the Department of Corrections and how

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Start there. Good question. I haven't met you all. This is the first time I'm before you. I'm here not quite two years yet, but you're So

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: why don't I go around and we'll introduce ourselves and I apologize. I'm Martin LaLonde, representative from South Burlington in my twelfth year in this committee and fourth year as the chair. Thank you.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Hi, I'm representative Barbara Rachelson. I'm by profession, a social worker, and I represent part of Burlington, Chittenden for tea. And I'm here, this is my seventh

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: biennial. Nicole. Hi. Kenneth Goslant, Northfield Berlin, small business owner. I have no idea what I'm doing in this building, but, I'm

[Barbara Rachelson]: in the legislature because I'm in here. And welcome.

[Angela Arsenault]: I'm Angela Arsenault, a representative from Williston, and this is my fourth year on judiciary, fourth year in the in the body.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: I like the questions you

[Angela Arsenault]: were asking. Karen Dolan, a representative from ICE Extension.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi, Tom Oliver, Sheldon Swanson, policeman.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Alicia Malay, Pittsburgh Proctor. I'm Ian Goodnow, and I'm from Marlborough.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Zachary Harvey from Castleton. Alberta from Westropland, sixteen years in the building. So we also have one more person who's online. Go ahead, coach.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie]: I'm Kevin Coach Christie. Let's see what's it been. Probably six years on judiciary. Been in the legislature since 2010. You know, teacher, coach, counselor, social worker, and a number of other different cat lives.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mhmm. You

[Kevin "Coach" Christie]: know? So we'll leave it at that.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Yeah.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Thanks. So let me just introduce myself since I'm relatively new to Vermont, and you might be able to tell from my accent, but I am from New York, New York City, and spent most of my career there and the last six years before coming here in Philadelphia. So I have a broad experience. I'm a psychologist by training, broad experience working for New York City mayor for working in Philadelphia, running the behavioral health system there. I did spend nine years as a forensic psychologist working in New York City, and was doing competency evaluations, and I'm very familiar with the New York State approach, which has forensic facilities. So I have some like, on the ground experience in And this so I'm happy to come to this table and to talk with you and answer your question. So your question, I believe, was, do I have concerns about the way this bill is written? Or maybe I can reframe it and

[Angela Arsenault]: not be so leading, but what are your thoughts on placing the responsibility and largely with DOC?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Yeah, so DOC uniquely here, and you've probably heard this from others who may say this, but it's unique that it's part of the Agency of Human Services. I like that. I like that it's by having worked with many corrections officers and been in that world. I like that it's part of the Agency of Human Services because so much health care goes on in that setting. Because it is part of the agency, we and again, so the Commissioner of Corrections is part of the executive leadership team of Agency of Human Services, just like I am. The kind of integration and conversations that go on make me feel actually quite comfortable that what will happen behind the walls would be something that's appropriate, something that would ensure that it's meeting the needs of folks as they go through competency restoration as it's identified in this bill.

[Angela Arsenault]: Just one follow-up. Are you familiar We don't have a lot of I don't think that we, as a committee, have a lot of familiarity with the practices and experience of, for instance, WellPath or contractors. The designers of this, the work would actually be contracted.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Just like all the healthcare in the corrections setting. It is a contractor, but most of the services that we provide for the state are through contracts or designation or through So it's not the state that directly provides most of the care.

[Angela Arsenault]: So in that case, what do I just I've never seen one of these contracts, and I'm wondering if the contractors are working under their own guidelines or if the state has an opportunity to influence the

[Charlie Goldserman]: practices? I

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: think there are expectations and deliverables that get baked into contracts, including the need for evidence based approaches, including what the timelines are, including what the deliverables would be, it would be quite a bit. I mean, the state is ultimately responsible for ensuring that it's an appropriate process, that it's done in a way that is respectful of the individuals who are going through the process, that it provides the care and the custody that's appropriate, and that it's also taking into account what the safety of the risks are. Again, for developmental disabilities, there are certain approaches that are considered either best practice or evidence informed practices, data driven about what would need to be the assessment piece of determining someone's confidence. For people with developmental disabilities, they may have never reached confidence in their whole life, and it's about attaining confidence or achieving confidence. Some will, some won't. And making sure that the processes there are responsive to those realities, as well as risk assessment. There are a number of risk assessments that are considered good tools. Again, data informed, data driven kinds of tools that are accepted in the field as risk assessments. There are sexual offender risk assessments. There are risk assessments. Currently, as part of the developmental disability services, we do have a civil commitment under Act two forty eight. And there are times when people get released from that custody. And there are tools that are used, some of which were developed here in Vermont. But there are some tools to determine whether somebody is at risk for harming again or at risk for harming someone. And so those pieces of it, the competency assessment, the determination of not restorable to competence, as well as the risk assessment are all important pieces of it. The right tools can be used in different settings. They can even be used in an out person setting. So that's what makes me comfortable with corrections as being part of AHS and also at the same time feeling like One of the things about this bill, because again, we're talking about safety, is that it's very narrow in terms of who this would impact, especially for folks with developmental cognitive disabilities. We're talking about very small numbers of people who would rise to the level of alleged. So they are accused. And so one of the issues here is that they're accused of such a high seriousness of a charge that they would fall under this, someone who could end up spending life if they were convicted. The other piece of it that is something that's always on my mind when it comes to cases like this is that folks who are determined to not be competent to proceed have not been convicted of a crime. And really do need to have an option at clearing tyranny. Having an option to at least have a chance if they're restorable. Like I said, it's going to be somewhere around 50, maybe if they use the right methods, who might be restorable? And then who the competence holds for this population? These are valid questions. But it does have a process for that built into the bill in terms of not restorable and being able to have other options happen at that point. It's a long winded way of saying yes.

[Angela Arsenault]: Yeah. Thanks for being here. And it's helpful to know that you have experience with forensic facilities. I think one of the pieces that we're trying to explore with this, of following up on the DOCs and how everybody's under AHS, is what should we have for expectations for oversight? Because everything's under the same one. Like, who's looking to make sure it's really working? Because it's kind of everybody's looking over each other. Right? And so curious if you have suggestions as we continue to explore that, or what were the oversight mechanisms New York? Yeah, in New York.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: So there are just so many oversight mechanisms. There are a lot of people whose eyes are going to be on this that are already on this. Think critically important is what is actually happening and whether it's working. Because if it's working, then you're going to see a system where there's flow in the system, where there's people who are getting better in some ways, depending on when it comes to developments of this phase that's different, let's say, than someone who perhaps had a mental illness or some other challenge. But you're going to be seeing that people are going to be able to come before the court more than they otherwise would have. And most of these people have been arrested and are in the jails anyway. It's not like they're not, and this bill is going to have them eliminated, but they will have more opportunity. So I think one thing is what are the manifestations of a program like this? You can see that. That's visible. The courts are there's public information there. I think, though, that there's always accountability within state debraments. There are constituents, there are reports, and there's report outs to legislatures, there's advocates. I mean, there is just so much scrutiny and all. And in the agency, there's also reports. Everybody reports up through the governor. So that's one concern I didn't actually have. There were more eyes on it in New York City, and I would imagine the same. Can I follow-up?

[Angela Arsenault]: I appreciate that. And I guess for me, it's hearing, but it's all under the same umbrella. So as far as where's the outside oversight look in, not saying that anything bad is going to happen, but if you're all under one department, there could be the, okay, we'll let we know we'll let that go or we don't understand that versus somebody on the outside that's coming and looking at the whole system. Like, did that happen in New York?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Well, were like I said, there were always eyes on what was happening.

[Charlie Goldserman]: Who was the eyes?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: It could have been the mayor. It could be the governor or the governor's folks. I mean, there were times when I worked for the mayors and other times when I worked for the Department of Health, there's always layers that you are accountable to. So there isn't like AHS sits somewhere where they're not accountable. They absolutely are. The thing about grouping and integrating services is for the people. That's how you serve the people best, for health and mental health and disabilities and aging and the Department of Children and Family and Corrections to all be rowing in the same way serves the people. It shouldn't be that these are fragmented, siloed off. There has to be that kind of. But the oversight is built into the way in which the structure is at any kind of public service system, but certainly at state government.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Thanks. It's great to have somebody with your experience in our state, we haven't met you yet. So I have a couple of questions. One is, in the research that I've done, especially related to some of the psychological journals, there's a lot of discussion about sort of best practice being not having people in a correctional setting. And one of the reports, Justin Welk rethinking how states approach competency to stand trial that council state governments, the American Psychiatric Association, NCSL, judges and psychiatrists. They talk about people languishing in jail and some spending longer amounts of time being evaluated and restored than they would potentially spend in jail if they were convicted. That often after charges are dismissed, they reenter without access to mental note. Another study talked a lot about the collaboration works best if we have departments collaborating together, which I think were your comments about AHS. But given that none of these people have been charged and I want actually to get to your remark about you said a lot

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: of these people are

[Barbara Rachelson]: in jail. My understanding is we already have too many people in jail that are really there primarily driven by their mental health and or substance abuse or dual diagnosis. And if we were being able to provide adequate treatment earlier on, we would have not had them end up in prison. Wow, so that's a really big question

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: because you're going into prevention and efforts to address some of factors that contribute to people ending up with a criminal justice scenario. So I'm going to just put that aside for a second, because there's a lot of work that is done and can be done to try to prevent people from ever landing in that situation. People with mental illness or people with developmental disabilities are often vulnerable and more likely to be victims. We know that. For those who do end up with criminal charge that are in jail, I mean, I'm going to quote Jackson versus Indiana, So that was landmark. It's already now, it's 'seventy two, I think. So it's already back quite a ways. But there were a couple of key things in there, specifically that people should not be staying longer or languishing. That was one of the key factors. And so this bill actually has some exit opportunities built into it, which I liked. So there are opportunities, especially if you're determined non restorable and some other of the circumstances built into it. But in Jackson, the petitioner actually did want to deemed competent. So there are factors here that would actually might serve to move it along more quickly than if they were just sitting there. And it's still a small So one of the things about misdemeanors and what happened in New York City misdemeanors, if you were not fit to proceed and you were misdemeanor, the charge was dismissed. I mean, this bill seems to get closer to that too. I think this will separate out these very high risk individuals. Also, there's a difference when it's not one population when you talk about someone with disabilities or even with mental health. In the developmental disabilities, you could be able to learn what you need to order to do this later method or some other That's really the one that has some real data behind it. Others are just not. So the difference between being over here in this setting where they're going to be working with you on restorability and being over here in this setting, this is going to be a very small This is a small specialized unit, so I think it wouldn't really impact one way or the other your concern.

[Barbara Rachelson]: So I'm wondering, I know Department of Mental Health was saying they didn't feel they had the capacity to run the program. Does Dale have the capacity to run the program in consultation with DOC working with Dale rather than the other way around?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: So Dale actually doesn't run programs. We have a

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: whole

[Barbara Rachelson]: designated agency system. But oversee it. And again, Susan from the Disability Council on Friday suggested, I thought, a great idea, which is offer a rate, more robust rate to provide the level of services that people need to be in this kind of secure, restorative setting and put that out to the designated agency.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Think exactly how that would run or how that would be managed is to be determined. I'm not sure that we're quite there yet. So I think there are many different ways in which you could set that up so that those who are providing the oversight and the actual restoring, or cerebral activity have the expertise to do it, have the qualifications. I think that that's going to be essential, whether it's through designated agencies or the state or WellPath. That's I think. It's less about the process and more about the outcome here, so that we're sure that wherever it lands and who's actually doing that work and that oversight are expert in what they're doing.

[Barbara Rachelson]: And it seems like it will take a lot. Is it worth us making DOC experts in these fields? I worked at a designated mental health agency for three years, and we were heavily regulated in terms of what we could or shouldn't do. Most of the programs that I've worked at that are either ADAP programs or licensed child placing or residential programs, there's so much regulation not and just to casualize on things, but the licensor coming in. So there were ways to make sure that standards are being reached. And I know this bill doesn't flesh out what the standards would be, but that makes me nervous

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: because it's just so important, especially for a really vulnerable population, to know that we're doing right by what. This requires the expertise. There's no question about that. But determining right at this moment what that will be is premature to having the bill go through. I can tell you that in Rikers Island, for example, the specialty unit for mental health, the correction officers that worked there, it was incredible training that they got that served them wherever they went after that. There are so many folks currently in the prisons that have some mental health challenge or some other challenge that it ends up being great that they got any kind of specialized training. That's what happened at Rikers Island. And some of those officers really loved that work, and some didn't really like it so much. But because it was a relatively small unit, it was the size of a city, people actually had choice. So I'm not sure exactly how that would play out, but it could be. When I toured Marble Valley to see some of that when I first came here, I just wanted to see what was I just had a conversation with some of the correction officers about what kind of training they had. Let's say a younger person came in or someone with a disability or someone with that. Some of them were interested in the idea of getting specially trained to work with a specialized population. So I don't think that if they needed a cadre of folks to be in this, that it would be overly demanding. I think it would be something that for many of them would be great. So I'm not seeing it necessarily as a negative or something that might overwhelm them. I've got

[Barbara Rachelson]: one last question, which is should Vermont also, or what are your thoughts about Vermont looking into contracting with existing forensic programs in New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, given that it's so few people.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Descending them there? Having completely fallen in love with Vermont, I think it's important to be as close to home as you can. Families should be able to come and visit with you. I mean, these folks haven't been convicted of a crime. They should be able to stay in contact with their family, friends, and to be able to be released right back to the community when it's appropriate for them to do so. And what we are trying to do is have them be able to be released when they're not a danger to the community and so that they can have the kinds of relationships we would want them to have.

[Barbara Rachelson]: But in some cases, a program in Massachusetts is going be closer. I worked with people in the women's facility and families would need to get up at like 4AM to, if they lived in Brattleboro or Bennington, make visiting hours at the women's facility, which was really hard if it was like little kids coming.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: I understand the regional, the border facilities. For our nursing home system, we have some border facilities. For some people, it's closer to go there. But I still think that we don't have one. It's a gap in our system.

[Barbara Rachelson]: It is, it is. But to do it right, it's going to be really pricier. I see. I'm

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: going to just Okay,

[Barbara Rachelson]: all right. Thank you so much. So just

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a few, I have a few questions. I'm gonna get back to how people end up there as opposed to what happens there. So there's treatment. You mentioned Slater Method. So there's some known competency restoration methodology for development of physicals, right?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: That's the one that really has some data

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: point. Okay. And yet there's a forensic risk assessment tools. What tools do

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Here, they've been using the VOTIPS and SOTIPS, Vermont. Yeah, I have it. So the VOTIPS is the Violent Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale. I could say that more slowly if you want.

[Barbara Rachelson]: No, no, that's okay. SOTIPS is

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale. One that is well known in the field is the BRAD, which is the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. So there are methods to do that, and those are like the risk assessments. Are they likely to re offend? Do represent a risk? The Slater is the competency. It's often done one on one with an individual. It could be done in a group, but usually it's one on one. And there is an intensity about it that you need to work frequently with the individual, probably several times a week, but certainly no less than once a week to help the individual understand the basics of what makes somebody competent. You understand the proceedings, you understand the charges against you. You can participate, work with your attorney in your defense. They have five modules. I mean, I can describe them a little, but you get the

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So is there treatment for folks who are developmentally disabled or have a TBI related to risk of bodily in other words, violence prevention?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Yeah, mean, the violence prevention tools are there's static factors and dynamic factors, so it should be applicable. Right now, we use the SOTIPS and the VOTIPS for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities who are in the Act two forty eight program. And you can see that over time, as the behavior actually becomes manageable for an individual who maybe is having difficulty, you see that the score does align with it. And we really are not comfortable releasing somebody out of the civil commitment status if we don't see an assessment that speaks to low risk.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. But there's actual programs, treatments that could be occurring in the forensic facility, not just on the competency side, but on the violence side. Is that right? Identify yourself for the record. Yeah,

[Unidentified DDSD Director (DAIL)]: so I'm Doctor. University and I'm the Developmental Disability Services Division of Director. So individuals who are in the program, who have any sort of challenging behavior, be it certain tendency towards violence, would have a behavior support plan that identifies what those challenging behaviors are. It would look to identify antecedents or triggers, and then look to identify sort of therapeutic interventions. So it might be cognitive behaviour therapy, dialectic behaviour therapy. So those are some of the more traditional therapies that you all may have heard of. There might be other approaches. It might be sort of a mindful meditation group, things like that. So all kinds of approaches, on the individual's level of need and functioning that they might be able to engage in. Many of them are very traditional approaches that any of us could benefit from. But some of those things that Doctor. Burdittenden is talking about is approaches that would look to identify and treat and support some of the triggers and sort of behaviors that are causing the violence that would then be assessed in those risk assessments to determine recidivism over time.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I appreciate it. Thank you. Part of the reason I asked is right now, and this is something we're working on on this next version of the bill, I'm working with state's attorney as well, is that right now somebody can be found not restorable. We'll talk about it in the developmental disability arena. And they're held unless they're no longer violent. So assuming that there is a showing, presumably by the state's attorney, that the individual does continue to pose a risk, a substantial risk of bodily injury, is the language we use, that they're there to perpetuity according to where the language is right now. Because there isn't like any check ins sometime down the road to see if the person's no longer violent. There's something I'm fixing, something that we're fixing to make clear that there is that. Incident. Only if they're actually non restorable and they're released, then there's this kind of monitoring. But it's not clear that there's ongoing opportunity to address the violence part so that they can maybe step down. That's why I was just asking those questions because I want to understand that there is that kind of treatment. So if the person's not restorable, still can work on the person's tendencies towards.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: We do that in the community, in the community commitment space, we do that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I guess my next question related to that is that you have somebody non restorable, they're found to still be a substantial risk of bodily injury. If there's a check-in at some point after that, would there be the possibility that they're no longer appropriate for the forensic facility? There's a step down. There's still risk, but the risk has been reduced. What's the next step down? I would assume in a community supervision of some sort.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: It could be, right. So if they meet the criteria for Act two forty eight, it could be commitment, it's civil commitment. And so then they would be under the supervision of the commissioner, technically. Right. Right. And so they might meet the criteria for that. Because the funny place there is that currently the rule reads that they're not competent, and they have committed a particular crime. And if they are then released without an effort to restore to competence, they would come right out to the community and actually could be committed to F-two 48 program, in which case they are required to be under supervision and required to attend the kinds of programs that Jen just described. Those are effective programs. Not everybody succeeds, and some people succeed more quickly than others. But it is evaluated on an annual basis.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: How is the Act two forty eight criteria different than the criteria to go into the forensic study?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: So it has to be an intellectual disability. So it's narrow and it has to be a significant charge. So in this case, it's a significant charge, but it's broader in terms of what the challenges are. It's diagnostic agnostic. How's that? I didn't even do that on purpose. It's not about what the diagnosis is. It's about the fact that somebody has this really high level of charge and is determined to be not competent.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is that the Act two forty or is that the

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: No, this is what's in this bill. So it's much more narrow in terms of it fits into the requirements of the eligibility to come into Act two forty eight. This is really being of more equitable. It's not about the diagnosis or what the person's challenge is, because we're talking about the legal definition of being competent, which cuts across so many challenges that the person might have or situations that the person might have. Whereas Act two twenty is specific for people with intellectual disabilities. There's an narrowness about it. It's not even all developmental disabilities. It's intellectual disabilities.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I guess just to make sure I'm following this. Person's phone not to be restorable and there's a determination that the person still presents the substantial risk of bodily injury. That second consideration, the substantial risk of bodily injury, that's different than what ACT-two 48 criteria would be? It is.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Much higher. This

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: is much higher.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Well, it could be that somebody who was accused I mean, there could be overlap. I'm going to do my Venn diagram thing now. There could be overlap. But in this case, what does not happen for the people that come into civil commitment is that they don't get an opportunity be It's not about restoring their confidence. That is just not part of the process at all. So are accused. And because they have the charge, then they come into Act two forty eight, if they meet those criteria. And that's part of the gap that we were talking about in the system, that we don't have a place where that happens.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. My point only is that if we try to restore it, that's not gonna happen. But is this person appropriate Is it appropriate placement for them to be in this DOC forensic facility as opposed to community supervision kind of through Act two forty eight. And I think that that should be the consideration at that time and then perhaps periodically. Is this still the right placement or is there something less restrictive though still?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Yeah. So let me say this. So in Act two forty eight, if the person's risk of reoffending and dangerousness is so high, then we might say we can't take that person.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sure. Then he would stay in the frantic facility.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: He would. No, I'm saying now he would probably stay

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: in the Even without

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: this bill. So if somebody meets the criteria, but they're too dangerous to come, there is a place in the Act two forty eight to say, We won't be able to manage. And sometimes there are challenges in the community with some of the folks, and it can take quite a bit of effort to contain and keep the public safe. What's happening in this bill is that during this time of opportunity for restorability, if I want to say it that, during that period of time, they have that intervention that gets them to a place where either they're going to go to court or at that point, if they're not restorable, I believe they can even petition and their defense attorney could petition for them to be evaluated to see if they can I think there's several levers? That part

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of that is clear.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Okay. So that's what you

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: were So I just just to be and I won't beat this anymore. We're not allowed to say beat a dead horse since our animal cruelty is I did say that. I apologize.

[Barbara Rachelson]: It's not a lie. Let me describe that from

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the wrangling. Exactly. It is that there needs The way it's written right now, and we're gonna fix this, is that it's not a clear exit once you're restorable, not restorable and violent. And I wanna make sure that that is an open exit because otherwise you're vulnerable to a constitutional challenge on this. So that's kind of what I'm looking for.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Restorable and violent, yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And you're held into perpetuity unless there are these other escape places. Think not in- Not escape. I don't mean to- I think

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: not in perpetuity, because I'll go back to Jackson on that. So it's not

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: in Right. We're just And I know under Jackson, it's like, if it doesn't work here, you go into civil commitment. Or if they're not restorable, you go into a civil commitment process. And that's what saves the constitutionality of plan. Here, it's not clear we have that, but we're gonna try to make that clear. And I just wanted to understand, and it sounds like from what you're saying that there is treatment that a person is not going to be forever violent necessarily. They could become less risky so that they would have an opportunity to move to a less restrictive. Right.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: All of what you're saying is right. And yes, there needs to be an exit and regular evaluations that are on set timelines. And I do believe that that was in there, but just you're taking a different

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're just making it bit clearer that it's not clear that it is.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Sure, of course, that would have to be if you're not restorable, you're not restorable. So that process has already now run its course. And it's going to be a fairly large number of people with disabilities who either are not restorable or restores even, because they may never have achieved it in the first place, And so not achievable or attainable is the term. And that has to be clear.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: One last question, over to Angela. So this doesn't have any kind of definitive end date. And I know some states will say, you're gonna try this for two years. If that doesn't work, you have to go in a civil commitment process. You have to have a different process. How is the direct to that? Do you have any recommendations? Should we say, so we're not gonna keep trying to restore the person forever? If they say, yeah, this person is restorable. Now it's six years later. We're still not there, but darn it, we're gonna be fine. Isn't there like a some period where we say, alright, you've got two years, you've got three years. And after that, it's got to be the civil community.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Yeah, I think the six month cycles. But then what ends up happening is that if you reach an impasse at some point, then it would be like you would check annually.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You check

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: the affordability. Yeah, you to make sure you've done that. But six months is an important time frame to be checking and to having some ability to see whether it's having an effect. For some people with developmental disabilities, you want to be careful that they're not staying longer just because you're still working on restorability. It needs to be a call that it's not restorable.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right now, there's no data. Right now, you can start looking at the second six month period to see if they're restorable. But if they say, well, keep on trying, and the reason I'm asking is that should

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: be an end date. I can't tell you right now. We can check and see what other states may be doing or what we're comfortable with. I think that it could turn There was something in here, I believe, where they can petition themselves for another evaluation, which I liked, that they have an opportunity to do that since Dallas, too.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, and I think that's primarily, if I'm not mistaken, that you're not guilty by reason

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: And the non restorable, I think, will

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: check that. I

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: thought that was a part of it. So,

[Angela Arsenault]: Angela, sorry. Sorry. So I'm wondering about, on this same line of questioning, say, the person has been found to be not restorable after some amount of time that we would hopefully delineate. And it's determined, looking at page two of the bill as passed, the Senate lines 15 through 17, cannot be restored to competency, would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. Then this person is going to be relieved, but under a certain you don't want to call conditions of relief, because that implies the ability to charge a new crime if they violate. So under some sort of court order to take their medicine and things like that. And the idea, as I understand it, is that y'all be supervised and helped in doing that. We heard testimony on Friday that it might be useful to have folks who are specially trained for this. And maybe it's not probation and parole coming out of the PNC office, but the phrase forensic specialty team was used as something that group social workers, probably, who are specially trained for this type of supervision or support. Do you have any expertise in anything like that?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: I don't want to predetermine who would or could have that expertise. I can tell you that there have been parole officers that have been incredible. And some of the folks that I have worked with who have gotten trained, who deeply involved in the success of the individual under their charge. So I think we want to make sure that there's appropriate training, but not necessarily predetermine who could carry that out. And I also just want to say you had asked about oversight, and I said it was premature. Think that it's going to require rulemaking and all to make sure. But there would be oversight and quality at every step of this. So I think we don't want to predetermine like it's got to be social worker at next time of year. It's got to be people who are appropriately trained, committed to the work. They could be parole officers. I've seen it with my own eyes, and I can tell you that I was surprised when I first met some of the parole officers and saw what was going on and what they were advocating for, for the individuals that are under their care. And it flips our preset notions about the folks who are charged with sort of the control and containment maybe of the people, that there are some really great folks out there with the appropriate training. I want to be cautious of that. I want to be cautious of predetermining what those rules and rulemaking could be. That would be the oversight of the quality and the system and making sure that all of this is happening. But that's what building the program and the system is about. Yeah, and

[Angela Arsenault]: I appreciate that focus on training. I think that is what I meant to say. That's what I'm thinking, and so making sure that I'm framing that correctly. Because it could be someone in a of positions or professions who receive the proper training. But I am worried about any sort of assumption that because someone is a probation officer, they can effectively help someone with complex needs manage those complex needs.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: So what I think, and I appreciate this, people go through their particular professional training, and it may or may not include some of what we're talking about here. And so we want to make sure that they have that level. And you may bring people in to the system that has expertise or that is trained or expert in the Slater Method, or it may be already there, or you would build it in. But again, that's the next layer, I think, of what would need to be put into place to achieve the ends that are recommended here.

[Angela Arsenault]: Yeah, and I'm thinking about this idea as something perhaps bigger than for just this purpose as well, because if we did have specially trained folks, we might have more effective means of supporting people on orders from non hospitalization who don't meet the criteria for a forensic facility and things like that. It's just better supporting one thing is around our community.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: So I appreciate, to me, it's just helpful for me when I think there's a small question here, which is what about people who are not competent and who need some competency restoration and are not getting it right now? That's kind of this question. The system and the different places where there can be improvement, it stimulates questions about that. These are two separate things with that. At least let's talk Barbara.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mhmm. So So

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: you knew we can have We're

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: about five minutes late for your Oh, yeah. But just really interesting. Thank you. We're gonna have to circle back around with questions from you and from coach later.

[Ian Goodnow]: The other but skip you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, all right. Well, then we can have them ask those questions.

[Angela Arsenault]: They're gonna be back.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: They're gonna come back. Yeah,

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: does that mean I don't have to go? I'll We'll

[Barbara Rachelson]: to go pop over there. Well, the

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: good thing about having Alice Evans as the institute, my understanding from her in another conversation we had a while ago, is that back in the early 2000s, they were specifically training DOC personnel. I think also probation did just that. And that program was canceled. I think it was through the Douglas administration. But you can ask. You can.

[Angela Arsenault]: I can,

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: because we're all on the same team. I just want to say that whether that way that it's done or this way that it's done or this way, will be necessary quality requirements for it. So I don't know that we have to pre state how that will happen. And maybe we do, I mean, you're the legislators. For me, it's like, well, we do have a gap. We are trying to close that gap. We want people to have due process. I would love for people with developmental disabilities to be cleared of crimes if they didn't commit them, but also to be able to get back into the community appropriately and not stay there forever. This is the way that we balance. I think this is a It's a really good step in the direction, I think, that is just missing right now in our system.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we'll have a couple more questions. We'll keep track of when they meet you down there. Ian and then Coach.

[Ian Goodnow]: Perfect. They're ready for you to whatever.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You can get over there.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Is this whatever?

[Ian Goodnow]: They're going to circle back to you.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Each one

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: who doesn't

[Angela Arsenault]: Why want

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: don't you go ahead, Ian and Coach, and then those will be the last two questions. I'll keep them short. I'll keep

[Ian Goodnow]: it really brief. My only question is, so we're dealing with a legal standard as far as competency. Then we have all these medical standards that wereand it's easy to have them overlap, but really talk in competency. I was having a conversation with a couple of people about this over the weekend about how other states handle competency and that it is such an ebb and flow of competency and that some states will take someone to trial and pause the trial when there's a question of whether someone is currently competent. And then we start the trial back on once competency is re restored. So it's like this constant back and forth. I'm curious from Dale's perspective, could that be an issue with how this bill is structured, where it's like a switch? We either have restored competency or not, and we have this concern of, Well, the switch has not been flipped, and this person's dangerous, so we're holding them in perpetuity. We want to make sure that's not the case. But what if it's someone where some days they are competent, sometimes they're not? And I'm wondering, from Dale's perspective, does this build explore that nuance of competency enough to actually successfully get somebody to their constitutional right to trial and

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: resolve So their criminal like I said, there's going to be many who are not. Competency is not attainable. And for some, it'll be clearer earlier than for others. And like I said, people with developmental disabilities are not a modeler. There are those whose IQs are kind of in the borderline range, and they're much more likely to be able to achieve some level of confidence than others who will not. And those who are not, once it's clear, they're not going to suddenly get So you're talking about narrowing the population that you're talking about, something like that could happen. The Slater Method is a very pragmatic method. It's not like you're providing a treatment that now makes them you're educating them or you're teaching them in a very part of it. You're role playing and you're explaining things in a way that can make sense and can be integrated for the person. So they're basically learning just what it is they need to know in order to ask maybe a question or to understand what's happening for them. Can that slip and go back? It can. It does happen where a person understood it and then maybe doesn't quite understand it, or when they're maybe in the situation as opposed to the mock role playing. But a lot of times it does hold. So there is some variability with the folks. Some of it depends on how much they can have that relationship with their attorney and how much the court may be able to make accommodations for their comfort if they're going through a case of trial. Many times, many times the cases are dismissed or it doesn't go to a trial. That is probably more common than the scenario that you just said, where they're on trial or off trial. A lot of times, it doesn't even get to a trial more typically in the system.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. All right, coach, last question to you. Oh, I think he's on the You have to unmute yourself.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie]: I was in that zone. Doctor, thank you so much for coming. And my my thought is being that Dale, you know, is another division and DOC, you know, at least write them at the moment has the responsibility The question is because you had mentioned rule making, would it make sense to put together a small you know, I I know people don't like study groups, but right now, because of the unique nature, you know, of, you know, our situation, you know, being that corrections and Dale are working together, you know, on this and have certain administrative overlaps. How do we move it forward, you know, in a in a reasonable and cost effective way as well, you know, for both both sides, both the public interest, you know, and that of the client?

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: I I, I think a study group would probably slow it down. I'm not sure that that that's what's needed. I mean, it's gonna already, if this makes it through, there will be processes that need to be, further developed. To me, it's a gap. It can be closed, then there's work that needs to be done.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie]: So basically so basically, you're comfortable with moving forward with the existing model? I mean, that and the new bill.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Yes. I I yes. And then all of the things that I said that would have to be built onto it. And I think the rulemaking process is important because it will get into things like, quality, and it will get into things like oversight. I think that there'll be plenty of shared conversation and activity that would go on there.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie]: And hopefully also cover representative Arsenault's point around, you know, the training and CEUs. You know, and any certifications needed, you know, by folks.

[Dr. Jill Bowen]: Right. By the way, love that you said you were in the zone, because I think of you now as a coach. Exactly.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Well, thank you very much, doctor.

[Barbara Rachelson]: Thank you. I assume you

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: were kind of a tag team here, that you're sitting separate. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. So, Charlie. Thank you for being here.

[Charlie Goldserman]: Thank you for having me. Good afternoon. I'm Charlie Goldserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and appreciate the time to share some recommendations to strengthen victims' rights within the context of S-one 193. During testimony earlier this session, feels like a century ago, on H-six 27 concerning victims' rights in forensic cases, this committee expressed some interest in further consideration of some of the issues that came up in that bill in the context of this forensic facility system. And so we are very happy to recommend a couple changes to support victims' access to justice, safety, and healing within the system. I have submitted testimony to Nate that has some specific language changes, and I will walk through those for you and would be happy to answer any questions. S-one 193, as passed by the Senate, includes some language already that ensures a victim's right to be heard at any hearing under Section three, which governs the procedures for individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity and their interactions with a forensic facility. And as we discussed earlier this session, providing victims the opportunity to speak directly with the court supports their healing. It can restore a measure of agency within the criminal legal system that victims often do not experience. And it can also help ensure that decisions are made with full awareness of the harm that was experienced as a result of the act. To clarify and strengthen implementation of this right, we have a couple proposed additions within this language that are informed by both existing criminal procedure and testimony on victims' rights and forensic cases you all heard earlier this session. Our first suggestion is to mirror language from Title 13 that details how a victim will have the opportunity to be heard in court. So it's specified that the court will ask if the victim is present and whether they'd like to be heard. And if they are not present, the court will ask if the victim has expressed orally or in writing their views. I think this language would just really clarify how in practice this right to

[Barbara Rachelson]: be heard would operate. Which section are you saying from?

[Charlie Goldserman]: Is in 13 BSA 5,321. It's in the sentencing proceedings and plea hearings. Our second suggestion also comes from that language, which just simply clarifies that the prosecutor's office should give a victim advanced notice of the hearing. And then our third suggestion is drawn from discussion on victims' rights and forensic cases from earlier this session, adding language that states that if a victim isn't provided with notice of the hearing as required, that the hearing will be continued so that the victim will have an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, we understand that the existing language was intended to apply to hearings both for individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity and for individuals found incompetent to stand trial. But as it's drafted, I believe it only applies to the former. And so we would request additional language to clarify that a victim's right to be heard and those related procedures applies in both cases. I have another couple of recommendations, but I'm happy to answer any questions on procedure piece. Questions on those yet?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think it's fairly straightforward. So yeah.

[Charlie Goldserman]: Okay, perfect. So my next section, in addition to victim notification around court procedures, is some recommendations around access to timely information about significant changes in a person's status, such as transfers or discharges from a forensic facility. These kinds of information are essential to victims making informed safety plans. Existing statutes outline the victim's right to notification when, say, a person is transferred from a hospital or a secure residential facility to a community on an order of non hospitalization. And this committee has heard that in a small state like Vermont, gaps in these notifications have resulted in victims unexpectedly encountering the person you harmed them at work or in their neighborhood. And these experiences are very destabilizing and retraumatizing. So recognizing a victim's needs for consistent, reliable and timely information to preserve their safety, we are asking for some policies that ensure those rights are effectively realized. And one of the ways that we would like to do that is request that the committee add language that within rulemaking, there are some rules specific to victim notification within the forensic facility system that include consideration of what events within the forensic facility would trigger victim notification, what entity would provide that notification, whether it's the Department of Corrections, whether it's the prosecuting officer, whether it's DMH or another entity, how victims will be informed of their right to receive notification, and what processes will allow a victim to opt in or out of any or all notification to maximize their choice. That's what I have for y'all today. I appreciate your time and consideration, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So that second bit as far as the notification of the forensic facility, are you anticipating that that would be part of the Vines system? And would we just The problems that we've been having with Vines would be here as well, and hopefully the solutions too.

[Charlie Goldserman]: It's a great question. And I would just note that this committee heard testimony last session about a working group to improve victim notification in post conviction through Vine. And that working group's been doing some really wonderful work. It dissolved in February 15, but we continue to be in conversation and look forward to continuing to convene in some form during the off session to continue that work. But yeah, I think it's my understanding that it's an open question about exactly how victims would be notified, if it would be through Vine and DOC's Victim Services Unit or another entity. And of course, I think that if those state entities are ready to name those details, we'd be happy to have them codified in state law. But recognizing that some of these details will be worked out in rulemaking, that's something that we'd be happy to see there.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Were these things brought up to the Senate as well, they just declined to incorporate them, or it's just not have brought up before the Senate?

[Charlie Goldserman]: Yeah, with this committee's intention to come back to victims' rights in forensic cases, we wanted to see where the bill was landing in some of these policy decisions that the Senate was making, because they did heavily impact what recommendations we would have. And so we did not discuss this language specifically with the Senate. And

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: today was kind of supposed to be our victim day, but we have Jen Coleman tomorrow. She was unable to join us today. So this next version of the bill will not have this victim stuff in it presumably, but we'll have discussions in here and some additional testimony and some version three will probably because yeah, I definitely see that we're lacking certainly some of the notification stuff in here that we had in that other bill. Other questions for Charlie? Alright. So thank you very much. Thank you. So we'll hear from Jordan next, and I believe Jordan is our last witness. Believe.

[Ian Goodnow]: I actually do have one question,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: and I don't know For Charlie?

[Ian Goodnow]: I think it might be for Charlie.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Ian Goodnow]: Alright. So you wanna add the victim notification or the guilty by reason of insanity as well, that it's clear right now that it's for the incompetency. Do I it the other way around? Oh, okay. I was going to ask, is there still a victim after the case has been adjudicated? But I guess if we're saying that they have an ability to speak on it or they're guilty by insanity, then it doesn't matter. So never mind.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And you got to release of the individual. Yeah. It's Yeah, never mind. Transfer and there's other information that victims learn. Yeah, well, in that case,

[Ian Goodnow]: we definitely should clarify that. The other one makes more sense.

[Charlie Goldserman]: Absolutely, and it's my understanding, based on conversations with stakeholders asking why, that that was the intention, that it apply in both cases. So we hope that that can be clarified here. Great, thank you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you, Austin. We'll hear from Jordan Mix. Thank you for being here, and thank you. So for the record and and Keith. Yes. Good afternoon, members of House Judiciary Committee. For the record,

[Jordan Souter]: my name is Jordan Souter, and I'm the policy advocate for ACLU of Vermont. And I wanna thank you all for inviting me here to testify on s one ninety three. I want to start off by saying that we appreciate the need that Vermont has in creating a forensic facility. This is an important issue and has been for a while, so we appreciate the time that this committee has taken in listening to testimony on this. Having said that, we are deeply concerned about housing the forensic facility within the Department of Corrections. As this committee has already heard from the denomination general's office as well as other key witnesses, it is unconstitutional to incarcerate someone who has been deemed not competent to stand trial or someone who has been found guilty by not guilty by reason of insanity. Therefore, the function of the forensic facility must be solely for the evaluation and treatment of the people involved in the legal system and not be akin to a carceral setting. And this is something that s one ninety three appears to consider as it provides on page 11 of 16, lines nine to 13, that the forensic facility shall Could you get in?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sorry. Sorry. 11 of 16. Okay. Perfect.

[Jordan Souter]: That the forensic facility shall be designed and operated in a manner that supports a therapeutic, recovery oriented, and trauma informed environment comparable to a community based residential treatment setting. Prison systems are not nor have they historically been a therapeutic environment. On top of that, we've heard from the Department of Corrections themselves testify about some of the issues that they are currently facing. Their facilities are operating at well over capacity with neither enough spaces nor beds and are experiencing some pretty severe staffing shortages. And this is especially prevalent at CRCF where the current population is at a 181 today, and their capacity is at a 177. And under these conditions, DOC is struggling to provide services to the people currently under their custody. And so this alone calls into question DOC's capacity to effectively manage a forensic facility that they would be legislatively mandated to run as a therapeutic environment. Now we also recognize the legislative constraints that other departments like DMH have in being able to operate the facilities themselves, and that DOC, as well as DMH, maintained that they would be able to implement this bill with bolstered resources. But many questions still remain, questions we should know first before committing to placing the forensic facility in an already strained department. How many resources will DOC require? How do they plan to create and maintain their therapeutic environment? Where will it be located? These are very important questions when trying to establish a forensic facility. Now I also understand that this bill includes an interim report section where DOC, in consultation with the other relevant state departments, will submit a report addressing some of these logistical concerns by, I think, October. At which point, by my understanding, the committee could theoretically reassess the situation if need be. Does that sound like a fair representation of how the previous testimony on the interim report? We generally are supportive of this provision of the bill, but for the time being, believe that that section should be the primary focus of s one ninety three. Because, ultimately, it sounds like that question that we have not answered yet is how would DOC establish and maintain a secure forensic facility as a therapeutic environment? And many concerns have been raised regarding the legality of housing it under the DOC, and it seems that the legislature through the various committees have not thoroughly explored alternative options as of yet. So we propose that this committee use s one ninety three to create a study into the feasibility of establishing a forensic facility within the Department of Corrections. This would give DOC and its partners time to solidify their proposal, as well as give the legislature time to answer these important questions, as well as potentially explore alternatives. And if it's determined after the study that it is feasible to house it under the Department of Corrections while maintaining the constitutionality of the facility, then we can proceed that way. But we should really understand the how before committing to a plan that runs the risk of being unconstitutional and harmful. Plus, it's my understanding that this would be the first time that Vermont is, like, officially creating a forensic facility, something that would be potentially a great benefit to our systems and help ensure public safety. So it's especially important that we are doing everything we can to make sure that we are doing it well and build something that won't potentially end up breaking the very law that we're seeking to implement. Thank you. That is my testimony, and I'm available for any questions. Questions for

[Barbara Rachelson]: George?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, my understanding, just to answer the setup here, is that we will have this report in October, but there's another check-in, really, is the rulemaking. Any rulemaking has to be put in place before this is operational, and that has to go through the legislature as well. Do check the rulemaking. So I guess the question, any comments on, I know that you've really focused just on the DOC, but has, you can see, I mean, looked at the constitutional issues as far as the processes that are being set up for how or who is sent to a forensic facility? Or do you not have any viewpoint on that?

[Jordan Souter]: I don't have any position on that at this time. It's still something that we're looking into. It is a very complicated And there will be a new version,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: which I think clarifies a lot of that procedure as well. Ultimately, there

[Jordan Souter]: are still many questions that we still want answered, and we think that it would make sense in field of balance to explore those options, make sure that it's something that can be done, hear what what the specific proposals that DOC has in establishing the forensic facility first and not necessarily, like, putting us into a corner where we would potentially have to repeal the law if it's determined that it was not feasible.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. So one other thing, I don't know if you've checked in with the Directions and Institutions Committee because, I mean, although we are trying to understand what happens in the forensic facility, it's important for our understanding that ultimately any changes in what we're doing there is not this committee's jurisdiction. Our committee's jurisdiction is really the first three sections of the bill. Though, of course, we're very interested in what I think. In fact, we have the commissioner of the Department of Corrections coming in tomorrow to understand that because we certainly weigh in on that. But ultimately, you should make sure that you do have an audience in fractions and institutions as well. I'll suggest that as well. Yes. I think I'm scheduled to testify tomorrow morning. And

[Jordan Souter]: a lot of these questions are questions that House Corrections has also raised themselves. Right. Right.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Appreciate it. Any other questions for John? Alright. Not seeing any. So the other witness just submitted written testimony that is what's her name here again? Of course, I got rid of that. But what's of that? Chairman. Thank you. Chairman, Courtenden Dick. Has submitted her testimony right. It is a well, you'll have to read the text. It's right there. I'll leave that to you. So tomorrow, just real quickly, before we adjourn at this for a while, because see. So very quickly tomorrow we have some more witnesses on S 193. We have like I mentioned, Commissioner Moran, somebody from racial, the integration of statistics. We have a citizen, Emily Perry, and Jennifer Pullman. Tomorrow afternoon, we're going to look at an updated version of S-two zero eight. I'll get this out to everybody so you can see it in advance. And the plan is by Thursday morning, we're gonna have an updated version that really works on the first two sections, I think, this. No, section one and section three. The section two is fine. That works on section one and section three. Been working with Jared Bianchi and others on that. And hopefully we will then have Jared, Judge Zone, Matt Valerio in again on Thursday morning to give their initial thoughts on that updated revised version. And probably because we're gonna have a little extra time, maybe we'll get back to the

[Barbara Rachelson]: two zero three and actually try to vote on S203 on Thursday morning. We have the amendment to

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: review tomorrow. That's right. We do have to look again at the updated amendment to S218. We'll try to keep it very narrow because I think the change is there. So is it a new amendment? The other one have to be pulled? And then a new amendment is presented? I don't think it ever even got on the calendar, so

[Angela Arsenault]: It got sent out, Kevin.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It got sent out by Nigel. Okay. Yeah, he'll be coming in. And I just wonder if it's gonna be on the floor that he has to pull it. I don't think so. I think it's just gonna be a substitute, but think that's

[Angela Arsenault]: how it works. So I'm wondering if

[Barbara Rachelson]: we can hear from some of the designated agencies or their representatives. Correct. Oh, I'm the CEO in the room. Yeah, no, definitely. Especially I know it was suggested that the medical director at Howard is also on the Yale. Yeah, I was planning on having her come in actually. And that might be different than from Yeah. That is, I have her name here somewhere. It's Cindy.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you, yes. Yeah, I was actually planning on reaching out to her. Cindy Robin. How's that right, Robin? Maybe, I don't think it's Robin. So yeah, I'll see if she's available on Thursday as well because I think we have space for that Thursday. Any questions? One last thing. Next Tuesday, five to seven is the required public hearing on proposal for the constitutional amendment. Is it gonna be on the in the well? In Room 11. I don't think we're gonna have quite as many people if it's if it's anything like last Miami and it's public hearing at single digits who testified. But it is something we're required to do. Is that the joint? Not joint, just us. Just us. Anything else before we go offline? All right, we're off live. Adjourned until tomorrow, I should have said.