Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Welcome back to the High Studies Chair Committee continuing to take testimony on s one ninety three. And we have the commissioner of the Department of Corrections up next. And if you could join us in the chair, thank you very much for for being here. Thank you, sir.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: This first time you've been in here?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: It is the first time I've been in front of this body. Thank you very much for having me. For the record, John Mirad, commissioner of corrections. I forgot my reading glasses in the car. It was all the way inside

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the building, and he had to go back.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: What prescription do you need?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Like, a reading. Got

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Plus one, plus one 0.5.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: 75, I think, or 175.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Oh, maybe one. I like and boys. Sorry.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, I have them now. I'm good.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Yeah. Oh, thank you so much. I went back to get

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to this table. So Yes. Future reference.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Ran up and down the hill, so I apologize.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It is. Can I just ask without looking at Burditt?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: How are you at this position there?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Oh, I've been in this position for seven months.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Seven months. Maybe a date now. Thank you. Okay. Alright. Proceed with your testimony on North Answer.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I I have no testimony per se. I am here to say that the Department of Corrections is in support of this bill, particularly the notion of restoring competency. A number of people who are on the path to questions of competency, who have had competency questioned, or who are in need of restoring competency in order to proceed with due process are in our custody already, particularly when we're talking about the crimes that are addressed by this proposed bill, those being what in other places would be called capital crimes or or crimes with the possibility of a life sentence. Those people are often, in need of both custody, the security that custody provides for the community, and, competency restoration, particularly if if that is a component of, what's a question for the defense or if potentially an insanity defense is going to be pursued. We are already in possession of a lot of those people with regard to custody. We think that it is better to have that be a a default that we have that custody as opposed to other locations that are perhaps not as secure, and we are in support of this bill.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm sure we have lots of questions, Tom and Barbara and Angela. Thanks for coming in. Pardon me. That's alright.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That's alright. Whatever you gotta do.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: It's not a hot seat. It is the hot Hill.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I apologize.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: As far as the building goes the treatment, I know it's a we're looking at right now a wing of Springfield. Yes. And how is that gonna look different, I guess, going forward than maybe I I don't know what it looks like right now. Sure. We've heard issues about settings. Mhmm. And is it gonna be, I guess, renovated, I guess, in a sense, maybe lack of a better word, but to make it more of a proper setting, you know, in some people's mind, and how is that population, how is it gonna be treated differently than a general population as far as a therapeutic setting?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I think that the therapy is the provision of the services, and those can be described better by others, such as our healthcare provider, WellPath, that does provide these services in other states. But the notion of the therapy is the act of therapy, the actual provision of both one on one and potentially group sessions. It's certainly

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: different than general population.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: It is certainly different than the general population. Aspects of it are not that different from individuals in our custody who have mental health care. And so, in that respect, the therapy is the act of the clinical sessions with clinical providers, for the time being from WellPath, or from whomever else we would contract with in the future. The idea of separate facility is not one that we are entertaining at this time. It's not one that we feel is necessary. The individuals in our custody who already meet, certainly the pretrial portion of this bill with regard to people accused of life sentence crimes who are potentially having competency issues, but are in our custody. We already provide them with, safe and secure housing. What we don't provide right now because we don't have that service contracted is the competency restoration. And as I understand it, competency restoration includes both mental health work and also sometimes civics work in order to ensure that the person can engage properly with the due process that he or she is being afforded. And so those kinds of sessions can happen in any environment and can happen when the person is in a secure housing, such as our some we have administrative housing for individuals who have mental health issues already or who can't be with general population, and that's where we would put these new individuals. Although, again, there are already people to whom this would likely apply if this bill went into effect. We would merely start providing them additional clinical resources, But we would not change the way in which we house them, nor would, in our opinion at DOC, we need to.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, Barbara, go ahead.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So the research shows that people housing corrections have a rougher time in these kinds of programs in the states that do them. And I'm wondering if another department to be named were running it, and corrections were a partner to be providing the security of a department where that's really their

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: expertise, how

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: that would work for DSA.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Well, we would endeavor to work in any way that we needed to with any other department, which in all likelihood would be a sibling department in the Agency of Human Services. So if it were a different department of AHS, we would work with that. But the fact is that the provision of security is really dependent upon not just our staff, but our facilities. And so the idea of having a DOC level of security requires, frankly, a DOC facility so that we can in fact administer it and control it in the ways that our best practices have evolved to lead us to do so.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So what do you see as sort of the quality control component? Because having worked at a designated mental health agency, sort of going through that process, and there's a lot of eyes from the Department of Mental Health. There's also a lot of licensure many times if one's running a residential treatment program. So I'm just wondering what DOC's mechanisms would be.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Our mechanisms would be as they are with the healthcare provision that we already have in the system. So we have a healthcare provider, WellPath. We have an entire entity at our central office that oversees that healthcare contract and does that work.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I'm actually very concerned about that because one, I know that they're still looking into the deaths that have occurred. There have been issues with WellPath or its previous name, I'm forgetting, in terms of how they've handled stuff. Certainly their reputation nationally with other departments of corrections is pretty rough. So that sort of makes it less appealing to me, if that's the direction DOC going. Well,

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I'm sorry that you feel that way. We feel that WellPath is a good partner, and we feel that we do get results from WellPath. With regard to deaths, I'd have to know which of which you're speaking. We have deaths in our facilities. People are sometimes I mean, any one of these any one of these individuals envisioned is likely to be sentenced to a term that is going to include life. That is the nature of the bill. People die in our custody. They are sentenced to do so. So that happens. I don't know if there's other instances in which you're speaking. With regard to WellPath, we do feel that we have a good relationship with them. We feel that they are a responsive partner, to the requirements that we put upon them, and those are often more stringent than they are in other states. And we feel that we get good response from them as we ask them to do things that other places are not doing, including, for example, the early adoption of MAT or MOUD, and the new rollout of our enhanced treatment, which has begun, and we finally have a cohort of people that we're going to be providing additional types substance abuse treatment to beyond MAT. They have been a very good partner in that. Also, there is also existing legislation around significant impairment that requires us to work with Dale and with DMH on those kinds of cases. These individuals, if during a period of incompetency, would be covered by that as well, and would have the same sorts of requirements that there'd be cross department collaboration in that. Once competency is restored, that changes. And I also think there's a difference between what we're talking about here versus the hospital settings that you may be envisioning in that these individuals have been credibly accused of murdering people. So you talked a minute ago about people who were sentenced, and that seems like a very different category to me than the people who have been charged but have not been convicted yet.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And I know there are some threading of the needle of making sure it's constitutional for the people who are not yet convicted. So you would sort of see both the people who are convicted and the people who are awaiting restoration in order to be found competent to stand trial sort of together in this facility? Vermont has a unified system. We're one

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: of only six states that does. And that means that everybody in our system is provided the same basic accommodations around health, around access to treatment, but that includes individuals who are not yet convicted, detainees, about 30% of our population, half of our women's population right now, and people who have been sentenced. And so there are different rules with regard to what can be used insofar as disciplinary certain kinds of disciplinary steps can only be taken against the sentenced and not against detainees. We cannot provide detainees with as much programming as we would like because we're never entirely certain of how long their tenure with us will be, and so that changes. But this population, as envisioned in the portion of

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the bill

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: dealing with competency restoration is by definition not yet sentenced. If competency has been addressed, then they can proceed with due process and either be acquitted or sentenced. But the unified system seems like another argument for it not to be placed in corrections. I'm thinking, and I know from your work in Burlington,

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: having people who were in significant mental health crisis going up to the ER was sort of making people like that setting was not conducive to people successfully being able to be de escalated or address the mental health struggles. And so sort of the programs that have been set up to be an alternative to a hospital are going to be successful. So it's that kind of not putting people in a setting where the chances of them having the most success as efficiently as possible may

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: not be being infrequent? Again, if a person is accused of a crime credibly, irrespective of whether it's a life sentence crime as is envisioned by this bill, or whether it is any crime, then they may in fact be sent to corrections, particularly if they still pose a danger to others, if they're held without bail, or when it's the crime being a felony involving safety, and the imminent likelihood of harm to another. If that happens, then they're held in these facilities as we have now. There are individuals who have mental health issues. I would caution the body that mental health issues, including a crisis of mental health, is not the same as competency. You can have an individual who expresses, for whom competency becomes an issue, a defense attorney, or even a prosecutor or judge says, We're not entirely certain this person understands the proceedings against him or her, and yet is not in crisis in any way, shape or form.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And that individual is as well served in our facility as anywhere and is safer and more secure in our facility. So your facility would be able to serve the diversity, so people with developmental disabilities, people with dementia, like they would all be served in Springfield in the CMUIC?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I think the bill envisions that certain kinds of competency we first of all, we do serve people in the way that you just described across the board, including detainees and including sentenced people. More common with sentenced folk, generally with detainees, there are mechanisms to get those people moved to other kinds of facilities. I believe those mechanisms are envisioned in this bill, and that would include mechanisms for individuals who either are in a state of mental health crisis that elevates them to the point at which they are eligible for a DMH secure setting, and individuals whose lack of competency is created by conditions that are not necessarily going to be ameliorated by competency restoration processes. And by that, I would mean individuals who are simply perhaps intellectually unable ever to grasp the nature of the proceedings against them. And there are this bill envisions what could potentially happen there after there have been efforts at competency restoration, what would occur at that point. But those are going to be tiny fractions of what is already a incredibly tiny fraction of the cases that are in front of the courts in any given calendar year or even in our history. I think there are, you know, I can think of a half dozen or so cases over the past half decade that seem to fit this. I will admit that I'm not entirely certain whether or not which of them is currently in competency hearings in the court or not, but I think we all have cracked many of these cases in the media. And several of the individuals whose cases have been in the media, whose crimes fit this category, but whose competency situation I am not fully certain of, are in our custody.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And are you worried about being able to hire people with the credentials that you need? I don't know how, if it's been easier to hire in corrections. I know that was a big issue a while ago. Well, these would

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: be hires through the provider. So it would be WellPath that would be making those hires.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: They would fully run that wing?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: It would not be a wing. It would

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: be treatment for

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: individuals in what would likely be a segregated section of housing.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But you would need more corrections personnel as well.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: No, I don't believe that we would. Again, we have a number of individuals who would otherwise be applicable to this bill in our custody already with the staffing that we currently have. And do you know roughly what it would cost

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: per person? Our

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: average cost per person in our system is $300 a day, and that's across the entire system. So nominally, these individuals would technically cost a little more in that they would be getting additional services, and yet I don't diminish the cost for all the other people in our system because they are getting more. This would be an incredibly fractional increase to that overall distributed cost. I mean, the $300 a day is our operational cost divided by the 1,500 people that we have in state custody.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But WellPath would increase their contract.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: We would have to increase the contract with WellPath to some unknown degree at this point. I don't envision it being a tremendous amount. WellPath's overall portion of our contract as presented in this year's fiscal budget is about 44,000,000 out of $244,000,000 total. So that's our total ask as a to the department. WellPath is about 44,000,000 of that. That includes about a 5,300,000.0 increase from the previous year. What would this represent in that? I mean, it would end up probably being a BAA for FY '27. How much? I cannot say.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, Angela, I gonna say.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Commissioner, so just on the point you just made, the 5,300,000.0 increase in the welfare contract this year, what was that increase for?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Average daily population, significant increases in our average daily population was the bulk of that. However, it also incorporates the enhanced substance abuse treatment that we were rolling out. Initially, it was rolled out as a component of the governor's 14 plan for Burlington, but it really is applicable anywhere. In fact, most of the participants in it are not from the 3B court in Burlington or the so called accountability court. And so it really is a new level of treatment that we hope to make available across the state. Right now, it's only in Northwest, in Swanton, and at CRCF in South Burlington, but it's something that we hope to make available everywhere. That is a component, both of the BAA that we had for FY26, and would be rolled into the increase that we anticipate for FY twenty seven.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Sure. And I'm just picturing or curious about think you just said it would be a nominal increase in the average cost per day for caring for individuals based on their needs. But I'm surprised to hear that, that I'm thinking they would Some might need quite intensive treatment that would add significant amount to their care. But I guess you're saying when you spread it across the system, it's a fraction of what we already spend.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: That's correct. You are right that if I were to, and I don't have the ability to do this. I don't know that it's something that we could do. I'm not entirely certain that it's entirely worthwhile to figure out what each particular incarcerated individual costs with regard to his or her food, his or her medical care, his or her other treatment options, whether or not they get different kinds of shoes because they have been medically ordered. All of those things factor in. Trying to break that down for an individual incarcerated, a specific individual incarcerated individual is not something I'm capable Yes, of doing at the a person who is getting this additional level of care that is competency restoration would, by definition, have a little bit more services provided to him or her than your just statistically average incarcerated individual, but I can't really break that down. And so what I was saying is that once I spread that across once I spread we're talking half a dozen individuals at any given time in all likelihood. Once I spread that additional treatment for that six people across 1,600 people, it really does not pop up as a significant statistical But

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: will we be able to say this is at some point in the near future up and running, will you be able to at least share what the cost is for the population, not individuals, but the population involved in the forensic. Well, we'll absolutely be able to share the cost of what the WellPath addition is. I mean, that will be something that WellPath will have to give us in

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: the sense of saying, we anticipate needing four additional clinicians of this level of education and training, and this is what they will cost, and here's their fringe, and here's our additional coverage for our overhead. And that will be something that we would presumably be able to break out. I would certainly hope that we would be able to. But there too, once we bring those individuals aboard as WellPath employees, I don't know that we change radically what we have, whether we have two people that are in competency restoration or 10 people who are in competency restoration. There may be a need to onboard more, but I don't know that we'd necessarily these wouldn't it's not like service staff at a restaurant, where you just say, We don't need You know, it's a slow week, and therefore you don't have a shift tonight. These are people who are now employees, and they're coming in, and they're doing this work. And even if we don't have We're not gonna force competency restoration services on individuals who don't need that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yep. And so you mentioned Springfield, and I'm wondering about capacity. And I recognize you're talking about, as you said, we've been told the number five or six individuals on average per year has been used a lot, so we'll stick with that. Is there

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: We don't know for sure. I mean, these are ballpark numbers. I'm giving them based on the number of individuals I have seen, and honestly, not in this capacity as commissioner. I'm talking about cases that I think probably all of us who are interested in criminal justice have tracked over the past half decade, really shocking and terrible crimes and individuals that we can presume are going to make defenses around sanity and also around competency, and how many of those have there been? And it's a small number.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So given that, that raises a couple of questions for me. One, do you feel that right now at facility you have in mind, there is physical space for the addition of those folks.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Yes.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: How do you anticipate handling gender separation?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: We already do. We have individuals who have been accused of crimes applicable to this proposed statute, and who also had competency issues who were women and were at CRCF.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay, so women would be

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: at CRCF? There are no plans to place women in any of the other facilities.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. That's interesting, and that makes me think about staffing and is there someone permanently at CRCF and all of that. And and as for capacity, sticking on capacity for a second, I was just curious about the we just heard about the population dashboard, the DOC's population dashboard being missing from the website for some time now since I think around November is what we were told. Is is that accurate?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: The population dashboard? I don't believe so. I I there are a few dashboards, and it's not since November. There have been a few that I think have been down since for the last month or so, or maybe two months at this point. And maybe, I don't know if you have more insight into that, Jenna, or but I can get the specific date for you when that happened and an explanation. It had to do with some data that had to do with tracking people's a combination of issues. Partly, it was around earned time. Partly, it was around sentence length. And so some the data that went into those dashboards was changed, and we no longer felt that we could have them up. But there are others that are. I think, for example, our immigration data is still up. And I thought our overall population data was, but I may be incorrect on that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, okay. It'd be good to I'd love to, at some point, hear about plans to restore that.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: We're simply working through We're working through what was happening in the input of data into our system that was then skewing the output of data to the dashboards.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And just to explain why I think it matters here, because this bill is asking us to put a lot faith in your department. And that feels all the more tenuous when we're missing some visibility and really understanding the capacity based on numbers. So I'm also wondering back to a little bit about it's kind of a combination of capacity and budgeting. There's a proposal in the bill to have folks who are not extorable released and folks even who are not guilty by using insanity, not to be held in perpetuity, but under supervision. They would be under supervision of the department. I'm wondering if you've thought about who would be providing that supervision and what sort of training would you do? Would you foresee additional training to help folks under Probation is probation, and I know the probation officers deal with all kinds of scenarios. But these seem pretty They might require intensive supervision to help folks comply with the orders under which they are released. Has your department thought about that?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Again, we already provide that service for individuals. We have individuals who are, we have lifetime supervision for people who have been convicted of murder, people who have been who had significant competency issues leading up to that conviction, and then had insanity defenses that did not prevail, but were nevertheless meritorious in many ways, and those individuals are sentenced. At least in one instance, for example, a person who's not in custody, although had those other issues not been at play, that person would just be incarcerated still. The majority of people who take another person's life are going to be incarcerated for many, many years. This individual is under lifetime supervision, and we manage that. We ensure whether or not there's a healthcare setting involved or whether or not there are healthcare services involved, that that person is abiding by those. And it's not something with which we're unfamiliar. It's something that we do, and I don't see any barrier to us doing that in the future.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. So you don't we we heard some testimony about how it might be that people have some like, forensic specialty team, just kind of making up a name. But it sounds like you're saying you don't see that as being necessary, that there are folks working for DOC already who would ably handle these types of cases.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: For an individual, as you said, out on parole, essentially paroled. Yes, we have that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And then my last question is about the physical space in Springfield. I guess also at CRCF, you know, physical space there is a challenge currently. And I know, again

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: It's more of a challenge at CRCF.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Challenge. We wouldn't be talking about large numbers. So all of that understood. How do you get from a prison or a separate can you describe a little bit how you're envisioning the physical space? And I I guess we can stick with Springfield if you can share thoughts about CRCF as well, because we should be talking about CRCF all the time, probably. How do you get from prison to therapeutic setting?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Is this the one that Matt Felt was invited to? See the arm. Or Okay. So therapeutic setting for me does have to do more with therapy that is available. That's what we are talking about. Therapeutic setting, if you are envisioning something along the lines of either a hospital or correctional setting that is more European than American, then no, that is not what we provide.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, I'm thinking about the honors wing or unit at CRCF.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: That is where we would house a person like this, absent there being other kinds of issues.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And does that exist in Springfield?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Yes, there is both a wing like that, and there is a wing where we house people who have more pronounced mental health or medical needs.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So for me, that's like a bare minimum. That's that type of setting. Do you foresee, or does the department envision any renovations, modifications to the physical setting?

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: No, again, for those who meet this standard who are already in our care, we house them as we do right now. I don't see

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right, but I hear you saying that often, but I think we're trying to do something a little different and a little more effective. I'm not trying to say people should be it's not about I don't want to be portrayed as someone who's saying we should make sure that people who have committed murder are really comfy. It's not about that. I'm really focused on the likelihood of success, restoring competency so that they can stand trial, so that they can be held accountable, and how important and how often overlooked the physical space is to that process.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: Yes, I understand that. I did not mean to imply that you were suggesting that they should have a different kind of setting overall, but the therapeutic aspect of this is the therapy that is provided to them.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes, agree. And I just want to make the point very clear that I think the likelihood of that therapy succeeding does depend partly on the setting in which the therapy is received. And I'm hoping we set people up for success. Success is a strange term in it's a relative type of success. But really wanting to get people to a place where they can be held accountable and thinking of that as success.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, Zach has the last questions, and then we're going to turn to the Glenn and our Tuohy team. Thank you.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And thank you, Commissioner, for being here,

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: because I

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: think one of my concerns about the testimony, not your testimony per se, but some testimony that we've heard in this room about this bill specifically, is that there could be a lot of hyperbole about concerns and the separation of agencies and whatever it might be. But I think the core issue that I keep coming back to is that the need for this facility is not only evident, but has been decades in the making. That predates both of us, being a freshman legislator and then the newly appointed commissioner for the safety of corrections. And I do think, just to opine quickly on what the most recent representative was talking about, we're not looking to create a country club like facility. These people who have been charged with very serious crimes. I think we just want to level set that we're not not looking to create a very comfortable situation because these are people The goal should be restoring competency, but at the very heart of it is that these are very dangerous individuals. So I just want to level set there. One of the things that we keep hearing about in terms of the number of people that this impacts in the population is between six and ten individuals. It seems from your testimony that that number is correct. Should be six.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I believe it to be a good estimate and ballpark. I think one thing is that, mean, when we think about the number of murders that Vermont experiences per year, we can take a small amount of comfort in the fact that it is a very small number in most years. There are anomalous years that happen, but most years, it's fewer than 20 across the state. And how many of them fit these very specific parameters? It's an even smaller fraction. I don't think that six per year by any means, to be honest. I I think it's probably less. But at any given time, you may have that number of people. But I would not say that each calendar year, we can anticipate, you know, six of these cases or 10 of these cases. I don't know what it would be. But it is

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: every murder is a tragedy and a crime that needs to be addressed, but we are lucky in Vermont that we have a small we we have a small share of them compared to the nation. It is not pervasive. It's not a pervasive issue that Vermonters are facing as a public safety epidemic. And I think, you know, when we say the term de minimis, I think that's actually being pretty terrible. To your point, I think, again, this is such a finite amount of cases. In terms of the scope of the way the WellPath contract would be expanded or the additional costs needed for potential renovations, again, I think in terms of scale and scope, very de minimis charges. Something I just want to mention very quickly too is the testimony that you had on WellPath being a great partner. That is exactly what we heard from the Department of Mental Health, and they had nothing but good things to say about WellPath and working with them. One of the concerns that we have worked to address in prior testimony is specific to the forensic facility residing within DOC. We heard very clearly from the Department of Mental Health that they do not have either the bandwidth or the skill set to implement and to monitor the forensic facility. So I wonder if you can just speak briefly on the importance of this remaining and residing within DOC.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I think that with regard to the idea of a person credibly accused of a life sentence crime who is struggling with competency, the idea that the best place for that individual to be held owing to security protocols, expertise, existing physical infrastructure, being DOC is, in my mind, I mean, there's a certain amount of self evidence in it. The situation that exists for the maintenance of that person's custody in a secure way is what corrections does. It is true that the competency restoration portion is not something that we currently do, but it is something that our healthcare provider has done in other states, and that they are confident that they can roll that out here as well. I do think that I believe one of the body mentioned, you know, could are they going to find staff? That is an open question. You know, can they find people with these training competencies near Springfield or not? It is always an open question in Vermont, whether we can find the talent that we need, and yet I think that we generally do. And that therefore is not of a significant concern to me, but the fact that the provider does provide it elsewhere, feels that they can provide it here, is a reassurance to me. The fact that the custody aspect of it, which to my mind is very, very important, is what DOC does, means that it is a better position for DOC to have this than than DMH. I I couldn't agree more.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And I and my last thing is not so much a question, but just a comment specific to what the representative prior to my line of questioning brought up is that an accusation was levied in this room about some kind of data being missing from your website. And I think it is just really profoundly unfair to you to follow that testimony and anyone at this table to use it as a gotcha type moment. So I just wanna apologize to you because I think that is really unfair for anyone in this room and for the chair to allow that to happen. I thought that was really inappropriate. And I think if anyone is having questions about data dashboards that are missing, those are conversations that we can have offline to make sure that they're still there.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I would love that opportunity.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we can look into that. Yeah.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I just thought that was really inappropriate.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We'll look at that later, but we have to move on to something else at at the moment.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So But it's not inappropriate to ask questions of witnesses.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: But to create a gotcha but to create a gotcha type moment on camera, commissioner, I thought that was

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: I'm pretty confused. I'm reclaiming my time.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm reclaiming

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: my time.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I just wanna apologize to the commission

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: because I thought that was profoundly unfair to create

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: an environment where that could happen.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: We want to be as transparent as possible. I know it was a hallmark of my time in Burlington as a police chief. It's certainly a hallmark of commissioner Demel's efforts. He's done a tremendous amount to make the department transparent. We wanna be as transparent as possible.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. And I don't think there was any gotcha moment. These were questions that came up earlier that we were asking.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: That's exactly what the rails ended from.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't believe that that is in fact at all. And I think that the commissioner did fine in answering that. Of course he And we'll continue to look at that issue. But right now, we need to move on to an amendment to s Apologies again for being delayed for being late. Know? I understand. It's have

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: your first impressions and second chances. I really do apologize. My first time in front of Spotty.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, Pat is doing the competency restoration. Do I know

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: other states in which they

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: are performing that task? Yeah.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I believe Massachusetts is one.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I I don't know of others.

[John Murad (Commissioner of Corrections)]: I can find that out for you, sir.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That that would be great. So we'll circle back around.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I just want to make one comment. I was unable to complete a research, a deep dive research paper by the division because this dashboard was not available, And I was been doing that research for months, and it was not available on the website as of December 2025. So the appropriate person to talk about data for the Department of Corrections would be Krista Murray, as she's the one that manages the offender management system. And I just want to say it wasn't a gotcha, more just an FYI, that maybe the public would want to know the information that's more current than I was able to obtain.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, we will check with Christa on that particular issue.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So again, just the hand gestures, the remarks leaving the room, highly inappropriate. I think people witnesses need to have some deference and respect for representatives on the table,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: so I'll leave that with the chair. Alright. So, Michael, if you can join us and tell us where this version does. Alright. Do we want the door open or closed? Well,

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: perhaps you

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: make that exact Yeah. Air conditioning is in the windows. That's what we really

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it's. I'm

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Michael Briden, Mary City, and I'm here to present the amendment, which basically what I said yesterday is exactly what it what it does. Purpose of the amendment was to bring parity and equity between the municipalities and the state of Vermont. The way that we did it originally was not doing that. It was actually giving a benefit to the municipality, and I didn't wanna do that. And thankfully, we figured that out in the process. So what we ended up doing is we basically just said, hey, it applies to the tort claim, I believe, 12. And and that way, it just gets rid of all of the, you know, the concerns about, you know, is there something that's gonna pop up? If it's gonna pop up, it would have popped up in the state of Vermont. So the the question that you, as a committee, have to ask yourself is, do you want to extend what the state of Vermont already has and has had for over forty, fifty, sixty, almost sixty years? Wait. No. I don't know how to count. Yeah, almost sixty years. Yeah, almost sixty Or do you wanna continue the way that it is? And that's basically what we're looking at. And I certainly can try to answer any questions. I'm very excited about this amendment. I was just talking to a municipal employee and someone that I won't name on the record, but I'm sure you all know, and that person was like, Yeah, this is good.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I just have a quick one, Michael.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Sure. Well, number one, thank for offering the amendment. And so you and I spoke yesterday at lunch, and I know that there was a redrafting process that was under being undertaken yesterday. I just wanna make sure that the amendment that we have before us accurately reflects your intention. Like, it's still

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: our intention.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Okay. It absolutely does. The whole purpose was to bring equity parity with the state of Vermont so that the municipalities can have that. It's something that BLCT has been fighting for, for years. And it's been on the wall. It's been talked about. And granted, this doesn't do at all, but it's just a little piece. And especially for this particular bill where you're asking the municipalities to take on risk. And for for insurance people, you know, the the risk needs to be tampered with something else. And this certainly does that. I think that if I was on city council, which I no longer, but if I was on city council and somebody came before me and said, We're going to make this policy change where we're going to reduce our salt. I know and we know none of us are perfect, right? We're humans. And so that identity Sorry, the liability protection that's in that bill could easily be something could go wrong, like the records aren't correct. And then the municipality in good faith did that, and they're gonna get punished. So, yeah, I I just sorry. Just think it's really good for municipalities.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Is there still a $500,000 cap?

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Well, it yes. So it it then so this particular bill pops it over to what the state exactly what the state has. So it is a $500,000 cap, but I'm not amending that. All I'm doing is saying that the municipality has the same protections that the state of Vermont has. As

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: far as the state goes, they have the $500,000 cap, but if they're sued for more than that, are they self insured from that point or do they have a rider or an umbrella, whatever the terminology is?

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: So they do have multiple insurance as well. I think VLCT would be better served at answering that question, but so does the municipalities. They also have additional insurances as well. In this particular, since it redirects it to the state of Vermont's, the tort claim statute, it it does state that it's a dent the the liability limits are only applies as May I see this?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sure. Think this is That is Oh, know what?

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: That's not the one. Help me. I gotta have it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You have the old one?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Oh, wait. No, that's not

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: There's actually a section in there that talks about the limits that are No, that's fine. I apologize. I don't have the statute right in front of me, but Michael does, so he can answer that. It does talk about the insurance it does have to have.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'll just say A Town would be capped at 500,000, but then they would have to purchase additional insurance or self insure if they got sued for more than that.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: This is where I'm gonna get out of my jurisdiction on this and how much I understand it. I don't have the language right in front of me of the tort claims act that

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Because I'm I'm gonna guess with the insurance rates may may go down a little bit, may not if you cap it at 500,000, but then you need additional insurance gonna cost you more. And then it goes through my mind is how much money is the league potentially save by doing this, if anything at all.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Wish I had that language. Just to follow-up, my concern is the same that we discussed yesterday that there seem to be a lot of implications related to insurance. And that is just as it may be out of your jurisdiction, it's certainly out of our jurisdiction in our at least. That's why I think this concept needs a lot more vetting than a floor amendment really allows. There's issues as far as what's the premium track record, how is this gonna affect premiums? Is the municipality, can they be plopped right down into what the state Tort Claims Act is. But I mean, I think there are differences there as far as how the extra coverage may or may not be there. And then ultimately, my concern is that if we have catastrophic injuries, is the insurance gonna be liable for that? And I think that it's individuals who shouldn't have to bear the burden of the damage that's done by the negligence of a municipality. And those are all things that maybe it's fine, but I think it's really, my view at least, that it needs a lot more bedding, including And I do understand that it was raised in commerce, at least yesterday, the concept, but didn't really go far on that. So there's just lots of questions. What are the claims history? What's the types of negligence that are causing the claims? What are the rates that the towns are paying? Are the rates gonna go down? Is the cost gonna go down? And is the cost gonna go down sufficiently enough to make up for the fact that we might not be fully compensating somebody for catastrophic harm.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And if I can finish up real quick. That's all right, no, I understand. Had kind of the same thoughts. I I again, what I I said it yesterday. I I don't think this is the the a floor amendment or an amendment is the place for this because of the vetting. You know, I said that yesterday also. And and there's been a fifteen year battle. The battle might not be the it's been a fifteen year wait, and I think it's time that it's addressed. I I don't think this is the proper way to address it. And and I'll repeat what I said yesterday. It it needs to be brought back as a bill, can be fully vetted whether we I don't think I don't like insurance issues in here, but that's just me. Whether we have a piece of it to vet in here is to be determined. Commerce definitely has a huge piece of it to be to be embedded. And and that and I think, again, I I mentioned it yesterday that gov ops is certainly another big piece of this being that it's the league that's doing it. But my thoughts are still pretty much the same as yesterday that it's time. I it may be time to work where where it comes out at the end to be determined, but I think it's time to take a a much closer look at it and and as a bill in that November.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And my follow-up.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Yeah. Go ahead. So regarding commerce, the reason why we didn't take it up yesterday is because we modified the amendment. We didn't want to talk about the insurance in the amendments. I didn't I didn't wanna go down that route. I wanted to just refer back to the current in law practice that the state of Vermont has. And I understand that insurance is part of that, but it is tort claims that would fall directly into this committee. And that's probably the reason why it's been referred back to you. And you know what, representative, I agree with You know, fifteen years is too long for us to wait on this. But the question that I have to ask, if not now, when? Because every single time it's brought up, it's not now. And now is the time, seize the day.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So just one other point on this as well is also trying to understand how the Tort Claims Act is actually working at the state level. Are people not getting fully compensated because of those caps? Or is there some way that that's not happening? That's just another additional thing that really needs to be learned. Maybe we need to be looking at the State Court Claims Act. Again, if people are not, the burden should lie on the individual or the insurer for the individual who's caused the harm by negligence. And if that's not happening at the state level, that's what I'd like to look at and make sure that people are being compensated for the harm that state employees do. And Karen and then Angela.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think the chair covered some of my things as well, because I noticed that negligence is still it's allowing these caps when there's negligent behavior. And so it seems like that's very intentional, and maybe that mirrors exactly what is in the state. But for me, that definitely is a concern that negligent behavior could be capped with somebody's harm or injury.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: It's exactly the language that's there and it's exactly what's in the Tort Claim Act. So it's not changing anything. Literally, it's kind of like my website. If you go to bootingforberry.com, it directs you to a Wix page.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I appreciate that, and I think this other goes along with what the chair was just saying. It makes me want to really dig into the current law then because I do have concerns with that. So for me to expand something that I'm already like, okay. I have questions about this. How did this get in place? How are we allowing this? I can't then expand it. I want to learn and understand that before I do that. So just letting me know.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: I understand. Believe me. I get it. Angela.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So and I just have a question about the language that's included in the in the current amendment. It says treated, you know, all of that. Line 11 shall be treated in the same manner and to the same extent as if the was brought against an employee of the state. So is the intent there, and is this actually a legal thing that anywhere I'm looking at 12 BSA 189. So anywhere it says state officer or department, if you just replace that with municipal officer or department, and that's how it works without stating in law.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Basically, all it's saying is that this statute, claims taken under the SALT bill, will be treated like the state gets for treatment. That's basically all it's saying. So you could replace municipality, but it doesn't apply to across the board,

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: just I'm the curious about that, just in legal language. Yeah, well, let

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mike O'Grady weigh in on that, actually. Any other questions for Mike? And then we'll just have Mike, I know, best to probably run to another place, we'll keep you for a few minutes hopefully, Mike. Nothing else for you at the moment, but yeah, could you join us? Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yes.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is Michael Grading with legislative council. Can I just respond to Yes, please? Person I was question. Generally, yes. You would just replace municipal employee or state employee or or state municipality for state where that was but there are provisions in the state tort claims act that just aren't applicable to municipalities, claims against the National Guard, claims against state fiscal officers. There are just provisions that are just not applicable because of the context of the claim that would be brought.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. And like this one that says, Any claim arising from the selection of or purposeful deviation from a particular set of standards for the planning and design of highways.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Highways.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: We're not talking about that. We're talking

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: about This is just for that municipal salt applicator or the municipality that is assuming the liability for the municipal salt applicator under the existing provisions for municipal effect and sovereign immunity.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. So there's no chance that if someone brought a claim against a municipality regarding the design of a roadway in a municipality, would they sneak in under this?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I don't think you could sneak in under this. I think because this is limited to just the municipal salt applicator or municipality does not qualify for the affirmative defense or for the best management practices that are trained under the local roads curriculum. I don't think you could then extrapolate that into the design of the highway project, therefore falling underneath the state court claims act. And there is potential overlap, though. Yesterday, there was discussion about how the state caps go beyond the 500,002 million provided that they have coverage for that. They've effectively waived those caps up until the amount of their insurance coverage. And they have as rep noted, there are multiple policies that the state carries, and the state is required to carry policies for its state employees. The the the league yesterday was saying that they carry their policies as well. They have ability to basically flex their policies during a claim to take on additional insurance during a claim. So it's not exactly the same for the insurance coverage, waiving the cap, but it is very, very simple. So to the extent that there would be a claim brought against that municipal applicator and municipality, to the extent that they the municipality has that coverage, they'd effectively be waiving their cap up to their coverage policy as well. But they don't have it's it's it's interesting. It's it's in the same chapter of law. It says The state shall have insurance policies for their state employees. And then it says, next decade, the municipality may have insurance policies for its employees. But when you talk to the league, they will tell you that the municipalities do carry casualty and liability insurance for their employees.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So though, I would wonder about, and this is probably not a question for you, but I would wonder about the incentive. Why would they want to have insurance beyond what they're capped at? I would say capped at $500,000 because that's all that you're gonna have to owe. There may be different incentives that the state has. I don't know what those are, and that's once again some confusion of how this would work with the municipality. Because I think that vague language is pretty critical because if I'm a municipality, why would I carry insurance beyond what I might be liable for?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that is a question for the league and not myself.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, right. And a question for the individual municipalities presumably. I did have one other question on this. So if the self applicator, if it's gross negligence, this takes care of what my concern was or our concern was yesterday. So you don't get the affirmative defense if you're grossly negligent or reckless. But do you get the cap? If

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: you were a state employee that was grossly negligent or reckless, it's possible that that still falls within your scope of employment, and you would have that cap. It's the same concept here. If you were acting within the scope of your employment for the municipal employee, you would have that cap. There are times, if you're intentional, willful, if you're just going well beyond the scope of your employment, it would not apply. The cap would not apply. The municipal liability and their duty to cover you would not apply either because you are outside the scope of your employment. And so that would be the same for a state employee. If you are outside the scope of your employment, acting fully, independently, wealthfully, without any authority of the state, and you Minotaur, caused damage, that is individual liability. That's not state liability. Any

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: other questions from my tenants? Yeah. Go on, Barbara.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So it's just on the thought. I doesn't don't the towns currently have a risk from a consulting? It's not Yes. Right. So it's not a new risk. I mean, yes, it is a new risk, but it's not like they're going from having no risk to a risk.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that may be a better question for the league because they have expressed concerns about the affirmative defense not being sufficient for the protection of their liability. But the intent from the Senate committees and the House Committee on Environment was to provide those municipalities with the same level of liability protection that a commercial applicator would have if they were applying according to the BMPs that would reduce the use of fluoride and were documented. Documentation is an important part of this, especially with regard to the liability.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Right. Because I remember us questioning the picture of the Stanstedt. Looking on this, thank you for forgot about the commercial. Ian?

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Just two questions. One, just to put a finer point on Martin's question, because I just want to make sure I understand it. So a municipality acting grossly negligent, let's get rid of the individual. Individuals are acting, but they're all within the scope. But the conduct itself is determined to be grossly negligent. They would not be eligible for the affirmative defense, but they would

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: be eligible for the cap.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They are not eligible for the affirmative defense. Grossly negligent behavior disqualifies you for the affirmative defense. Whether or not they would qualify for the cap really depends on a more fact based investigation into the damages, the act, what they were doing. If they were so reckless, they potentially were outside the scope of their employment. But there's definitely fact based scenarios where you could still be under that.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, I was thinking that actually, divorce negligence wasn't an active individual,

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: but it was a combination of facts where the equipment wasn't maintained in a way that was leading the general duty of networking.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And so in those instances, they would be It's potentially there. And then my one other question is more just talking about specifically for the cell applicator, the private analog to the town, does the town's qualified immunity protections from liability part that we should be considering or trying to make the equivalent analysis to a private enterprise that doesn't have

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: that?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that was actually something that came up last year when the towns were saying that they were looking for some sort of viability protection. And I misstated that they had sovereign immunity, they very clearly corrected me that, yes, municipality has sovereign immunity, but under statute, they have to assume the liability of the municipal employee acting within the stroke of their duty. And so it's not really full sovereign immunity. It's kind of a, They assume the liability of the employee. So that is that corollary. That is, are the municipality is acting like the private employer of the the private commercial SAWD applicator. And so there that is why there is the the two sided program or two headed program. Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Any other questions from Mike?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we can hear very briefly from Samantha and very briefly from Adam. We still have eyewitness on 193 if you want to give to. So if you wanna join us, I guess there are a couple of questions that Yeah, we've please. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being available.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: For the record, my name is Samantha Sheehan. I'm the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and happy to answer some questions I haven't raised or any other questions that you have. I want to first say I really appreciate the work of representative Boothen and of legislative council. We went through this with them yesterday and find the new language that's before you this morning morning to be a really elegant and fair solution that would functionally address BLCC's major concerns with 02/18, which I'll just remind you, we share the broad intent of the bill, which is to reduce the application of road salt with an interest to help preserve water quality, to decrease excessive cost burdens on town highway budgets at the municipal level, and to help Vermonters avoid rust in their beach vaults that comes from excessive road salting. So I want to answer the first line of questions regarding the may and the shall of insurance for property and casualty insurance and what the general liability coverage is under policy. So all municipalities are insured. My town has an annual general fund budget authorized by voters under $500,000. It's never gone over $500,000. I think it would be objective to say that our legislative body would be in dereliction of duty if they didn't cover liability insurance, understanding what our community's available resources are and existing tax capacity is to carry those liabilities. So it's one of the reasons why VLCT is happy to provide the passive pool that makes adequate property and casualty insurance accessible to all Vermont municipalities. Our current maximum liability coverage is $10,000,000 And long preceding the debate around this bill or even the more recent changes to tort liabilities for the state, there is an existing function of the law that allows municipalities to purchase reinsurance without forfeiting their immunities, the municipality corporate's immunities. And so that exists. It is done. I'm aware and have participated in examples where that's happened. My understanding is it happened in the branding case we discussed yesterday. So basically, if the municipality must meet an award settlement or chooses we didn't talk about this yesterday, but the legislative body can decide to make an award over what's being asked or what the insurance provider is willing to settle for. So a common dynamic is the insurance company says, we'll offer $50,000 for the settlement, and then the municipality chips in some amount above that. They could do that from available resources within the municipally authorized budget. They could do it on an action of the authorizing bodies there if they have a budget committee or if they need a town vote. Or they could do this purchasing of reinsurance to go above and beyond the cap that they have in their policy. And that is what Mr. Ogredi was explaining is not exactly the same as the way the state self insures and manages these situations, but the outcome is substantially similar. It allows the municipality to function in the same way as a self insuring entity such as state government.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I guess if there's the insurance up to $10,000,000 that can cover the catastrophic situation, I guess what is the problem that this is trying to solve? I mean, if we're saying, all right, we want this cap of $500,000 but we're not gonna use it because we have the insurance, I'm a little confused.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So I mean, the first problem that it's trying to solve is parity. So municipalities deliver most of the experience of government that Vermonters have, the things that you see and touch and interact with. We provide the vast majority of public right of ways, roads, sidewalks, pedestrian infrastructure, retaining walls, all of the public wastewater and drinking water systems. We do all of this in partnership with state government without any of the same protections. When it comes specifically to the application of road salt, I think representative Rachelson makes a great point, which is, yes, municipalities are currently carrying an outsized risk and liability when it comes to maintaining safe road conditions. The community of Brattleboro currently has a $14,000,000 funding problem just for pavement condition. The purchasing power of town highway budgets is at onefour of the twenty seventeen level. So that's money coming from the state transportation fund through community block grants to maintain public class one and class two highways. So this risk and the urgency for VLC team and for municipal officials across the state is growing just sort of at a baseline because it's getting harder to maintain safe public infrastructure to the highest and best standards that we wish to, state and local government. And then when you create new policies, we've testified on this question in committees all over the building over the years. I've only worked for VLCT for two years. But this comes up in questions with stormwater regulation requirements where the state wishes a municipality to build a stormwater system on someone's private property. That could be a pond. If municipality is going to carry the liability of a pond on property that they can't control access to, then we are asking for parity in the liability limits of the Tort Claims Act.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So what that says to me is that if somebody, because of negligence of the municipal employee, has been injured to more than $500,000 to be a catastrophic injury, that somehow this is going to shortchange that individual because of that cap. Because if it's not, then I don't understand what the problem is that you're trying to solve. But you've already said that. Any other questions? Because we do have another witness at 11:30.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: I can respond really briefly to that, which is the decisions made by the parties. So all of the insurers who would be involved, the claimant, co claimants, and the municipality and the municipal officials that they're bound by state law to defend and indemnify, would be subject to the same constraints as when these terrible situations happen in state facilities. And there is an ability to go above the cap if that's what's decided or awarded by the court. The goal would be to function within it. And there are spurious claims. They happen every day. There are many that are open right now against municipalities across the state.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And a spurious claim that is going to cost more than $500,000 presumably is going to be litigated as opposed to just settled for a nuisance value. Would presume the opposite.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: I would presume that it would be settled. That is informed by the limited experience I have at The the municipal

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: nuisance value is what the patients. But anyway

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: And I want to talk about negligence because I think it's a really important part. As Representative Button explained, the language regarding negligence that you see on the page in front of you is totally consistent and pulled directly from Port Claims Act. And in this situation, remember, this is a very discrete change. If municipality participates, if two eighteen becomes law, and then VTrans stands up for Better Roads program and then a municipality enrolls in the program and then there's an accident in that municipality and the municipal official in question cannot qualify for the affirmative defense, this is a safety net for us if you choose to adopt this amendment. In this context, negligence could be not recording the temperature outside when you made the salt treatment on a day before the accident happened. That's what our issue is with the language in the affirmative defense, is that in order to qualify, you need to have three years of records of every treatment and the weather condition in addition to three years of training records under the Better Roads program. Our municipal officials are elected and appointed in March and may not be seated between April and July. If there's a weather event and someone puts salt down, they might not be trained. That would be negligent under the way this program is envisioned and set up.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So, all right, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. And you being available. But let's just real quickly hear from Adam. Chris Bailey wasn't available. So over to Adam.

[Adam Necrason (Vermont Association for Justice)]: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you. I am Adam Nekrassen, Nekrassen Group, Vermont Association for Justice. I'm here to provide testimony to resist this amendment, and I know to keep it simple, high level, and brief. Even as I would be tempted to litigate with very different legal conclusions and analysis the testimony you've just heard. I'm going to swing at a higher level. Refreshing your memory and for those that weren't in the room yesterday, we brought in attorney Malay who's represented an individual that was catastrophically injured, due to the patently negligent, town failure to maintain an attractive nuisance life post, fall over, become a paraplegic, lifelong medical care for the rest of this young woman's life. And the good news is, and this relates to the topic at hand, that the municipal insurance program is in good shape. The law is working well. We're still listening for evidence that the municipal risk sharing program is in crisis and has a fiscal prudency problem that makes its way down through to Vermont taxpayers. The equivalency argument I'm going to criticize briefly in two or three ways, but as I bridge to that, when we read today's amendment, it is very complex. This is taking a hundred and fifty years of court jurisprudence and law and just striking it out and inserting what we think is a false equivalency. A lot would be lost in that including I caution for the proponents of the amendment some of the protections put in place for the individual worker in 2011. You know my firm I've been I was involved with that and understand the snowplow case history there, but the municipal worker has a protection here that is potentially lost in the mix of this amendment, and so I'm not sure that that's adding up. But as it relates to the equivalency argument, parity it's called, and the protection from liability. Protection from liability is abandonment of responsibility and leaving someone who's been catastrophically harmed without recovery. But the equivalency, the municipal to the state, is in a sense a false argument in this moment. Here's why. The state is a single entity that self insures and purchases insurance. Municipalities, there's 200 plus of them, and they pool together into passive, the property and casualty inter municipal fund. More on that in future hearings to come, but suffice to say that an individual municipality doesn't is not the same as the entire state of Vermont, and the way they manage that is to pool their risk into a very successful insurance program. And it's good. It has this $10,000,000 reinsurance fund that helps in the very rare instance someone is seriously hurt. Missing from the record is testimony from passive about their rates, their premium pressures, their premium track record, the number of claims contrary to what you heard yesterday. The LCT has right in their office probably a spreadsheet with all the claims history and the open claims, and you could have those executives come and then explain to the committee what is the actual track record here. We are mindful then when we kind of audit into the passive space, there's a lot of pressure from floods, property damage. This is about premises liability and personal injury that can be catastrophic. So we would hope the general assembly would probe passive on what's in crisis that they're suggesting that they want to take their 10,000,000 reinsurance levels and drop it down to 500,000 as a matter of law. Unlike the state law where there is a chief executive through the Secretary of Administration that buys additional insurance to waive those caps, there is no single elected chief executive overseeing this insurance program for municipalities that is taking a I'm worried about my citizenry who will be left holding the bag if they're catastrophically injured. And so there's a false equivalency in a couple of ways here that would take a little while to unpack. I know to be real brief here, suffice to say we're interested in hearing the dots get connected from the injured Vermonter, innocently so due to careless unreasonable behavior, rare but happens, to the passive insurance fund then to the municipal taxpayer buying the insurance premiums, and all of that is missing from the record. Our supposition is is now broken, and that opening this up will have a lot of unintended consequences. Thank you, mister chair.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So alright. I appreciate that. I guess I go back to, and I'm gonna ask just for a motion to find this unfavorable and we can then have a conversation, that I have a couple of things. I wanna make sure that individuals who are catastrophically injured have their needs met. And that includes on whether there should be any, if we should be looking at the state's Tort Claims Act as well, and how that is or isn't working. There's that part, and then there is all this about the insurance and it goes back to needing to vet that a little bit further because it's still, it's not clear to me exactly how this cap is working at the state level and how exactly it would work at the municipal level, including the incentives that the cap might lead to as far as insurance coverage and such. For those reasons, I'm gonna take a motion to find this unfavorable. So moved. Second. Is there additional discussion? Seems like we've taken more testimony on amendment than what we did to Bill. Yeah. This year, I think we took a lot more last year. But you're right this year. Any other discussion? Alright. Not seeing any. All those who find this unfavorable, raise your hand. Coach, are you there? 567. Those finding it favorable, raise your hand. Right now, 731. All right. Thank you, everybody. And we're gonna go to Jen Coleman and back to 01/1993, where we really should be spending a lot of our time. So if you could take this on. And if you get questions to respond.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I'm causing everyone to leave.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, sorry, I just have to go talk to another lady briefly, but you're in good hands. You're in good hands and I get to watch you later.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: There'll be a test.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Shall I begin?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Whenever you're ready.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Okay. Good morning, and I want to thank the committee for its flexibility. The stomach bug hit my daughter and that hit me yesterday. So I'm a little shaky, but I'm here. For the record, my name is Jennifer Pullman. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. Also, I want to mention, because it's relevant for the conversation, that I served as the Vice Chair of the Act twenty seven Working Group that was established by this body in 2023 to look at these exact issues. We issued a report in 2024, which is on the committee's page. Also, I serve as the chair of the Vermont Victim Notification Task Force group, and I know there were questions raised yesterday about the victim notification process, so certainly able to answer any of those questions. Speaking broadly, the Center strongly supports the establishment of a forensic system of care and competency restoration program. It's really a challenge for us to understand how we basically stand alone as a state in this space without either. Since I took this job about four and a half years ago, we have worked diligently to try and establish some sort of a facility that would also include enhanced victims' rights. But each year, despite the hard work of various committees, it feels like, the movie Groundhog Day because we just start all over again at square one, and at some point, we need to do something, and languaging is not fair to anyone. There are undeniable gaps, and while I agree that there are more resources needed to strengthen and support community services and placement, that's not the answer in all cases. As you heard, the intention is to target a small but dangerous group for this intervention. During the Act 27 discussions that we had, Dale provided numbers on the number of elopements of individuals who were being held in secure community placements. The Act two forty eight population are those who have been alleged to have committed serious violent crimes and remain a danger to themselves or the community. We heard, and the number of elopements from these secure placements was, concerning to say the least. And the incidence of violence on staff was real and was reported and again was of concern. There was a danger to communities and new crimes committed. The community placements are not working for all people. Also, placement options for these individuals, and you've heard some of those, whether it be a nursing home or providing them with support with other nonviolent individuals who needed support. The notion of mixing was not acceptable to the majority. It felt way too dangerous to be placing violent offenders in nursing homes and in other placements where there were people who were struggling with mental health issues but were not violent offenders. Again, there are options. We can do better, but they are not the answer. I want to turn to victims' rights because I'm just going to focus on that area because you've had enough subject matter experts to go into the weeds on what model is the most appropriate. I'm pleased to see that in Section three of S. 193, sub section G, it restores the victim's right to appear in person. I say restore because in earlier iterations of these bills, one of which passed out of house judiciary, that was included. Unfortunately, as the bills have traveled around the state house, that has not remained. The basic rights for victims are not controversial. You'll see in the Act 27 report, I could try and screen share, but we all know how that's going to go. But on pages twenty seven and twenty eight, there are three areas where victims' rights were noted to be enhanced, and there's language. One is the notice, one is to appear in person, and one is their right to request a hearing. And I want to emphasize that these recommendations were agreed to by all members, all 15 members of that multidisciplinary group. That includes mental health care providers and it even includes legal aid. There was support for that across the board. As you heard from Susan Aronoff last week, who is also a member of the Act 27 working group, while she doesn't support the approach in this bill in terms of the facility, she said that she absolutely does recognize there's a need to provide additional rights for victims in these processes. And I think that's really important. These are not controversial pieces. I know you've heard from two witnesses who over the years have unfortunately been quite dismissive of victims. Neither of them were a part of the Act 27 discussion, and as stated, the designee from one of their own agencies voted in favor of enhanced rights for victims in these processes. I was thinking back to a statement that Wilda White offered several weeks ago in this committee when she said, Those with lived experience are not a decoration. They are experts. That really sat with me in terms of how she phrased that. Despite years of hearing pejorative statements, no role, no relevance, only emotional, I want to emphasize that, sure, victims generally are not experts on clinical experience or clinical decisions. But on the crime itself, on that person, that's a different question, and they still should have the right to be heard. They have that right in juvenile cases. They have that right in adult cases, and it doesn't necessarily impact the disposition, but it is that right to be heard. I do hope also that the powerful testimony from Emily Perry this morning will stop further statements in that vein that are re traumatizing. Ms. Perry shared info about her dad with the court about a lifelong pattern of being unable to care for himself. She said no one was considering this in a placement determination. In fact, they were considering placing him right near where they lived. That information is important, because nobody was considering this. Nobody knew that. So again, I think it would be helpful to stop the conversation that victims have nothing to offer in this process. I do agree with the network in terms of that the victims rights language relative to NGRI proceedings should also be reflected in the competency restoration provisions and also agree that additional language to spell out the role of the court in hearings to assure victims should be heard should mirror that in '13 BSA 5321. One tricky issue that remains is who is responsible for this notice. It was brought up yesterday as to whether Vine could serve that role. Vine would not be ready to serve that role. It's more important to figure out who the who would be. DMH and Dale have made it clear that they cannot do it. It's not appropriate for their agencies, nor would that necessarily be ideal, because somebody needs training to provide that critical information. So the role for the State's Attorney's Advocates or DOC or both, it's hard to establish now given the uncertainty, but I think rather than try and parse that out because we're uncertain, that we can address that in the rules. Finally, I understand yesterday that there was a question about additional voice from providers. I would suggest two members of the Act twenty seven Task Force. One is Patrick Frawley from the Vermont Crisis Intervention Network and also Mary Graham McDowell from Vermont Care Partners. They were both very active members of the Act twenty seven work group, so they come with that background as well, in addition to being direct providers of the service and they can share their concerns with you about what exists in the current system and what doesn't exist. So finally, I just want to thank you for the hard work that you've done to try and make progress yet again. This committee always, provides such a thoughtful look. Well, I understand concern exists about the approach and I can't read the tea leaves as to how everyone's going to come out, but the victims rights provisions are not. I would urge you to implement the Act 27 language that was on page twenty seven and twenty eight, and also to implement the network suggestions around including the same language and competency restoration proceedings that we have in the not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as providing guidance to the courts to be in line with 13 BSA 5,321, where they're asking if the victim's present and then if the victim wants to be heard. I think that provides a more supportive pathway for that voice. So, that's all I have to offer.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thanks, Jen. Barbara? Thanks.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Hello, Jen. Good to see you. Hope you feel better. Thanks. Am wondering, I know you worked in Massachusetts. Do you know much about their restoration competency?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: No, I don't. I represented kids in delinquency cases, and so we didn't generally go that route. I thought it was an interesting suggestion as to whether or not we would basically send people out of state. It feels like an easy solution, but it feels also against how we in Vermont treat young people who've caused harm and treat adults as well. I really think that we need to figure out an in state strategy for dealing with a very small population rather than taking them away from their communities.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: It's interesting because I found myself thinking, would it be great if we got the people back from Mississippi and put them in that wing available in Springfield, which would free up a lot of money to help fund a forensic program somewhere in state. Your group end up talking about the pros and cons of where and who should house this program?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: No, we did. The majority at a nine-four-one vote supported the concept of building a forensic facility, and that includes actually Green Mountain Care Partners and Crisis Intervention Network. As far as what it would look like, we mean that as you heard from Laura, I mean, DOC wasn't on the group. We didn't have that further level of conversation. I think the idea was that the state would invest the money to build something freestanding. But that continues to not be the plan. And in an ideal world, my ideal world, that would be the direction we'd go. And I understand that costs money. And I understand this is an attempt to try and make something happen so that we can support people being held accountable, getting them to a place where they're not sitting there and going to trial. Because as you heard the other day, many of them don't want to languish. They do want to go to trial. And providing some closure for victims who often sit there in a black hole and have no information whatsoever. None of those situations are acceptable.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Great. Thank you.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thank

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: you. Just a question, Jennifer. Can you say again, you mentioned two folks we should hear from, and I got most of the information, Vermont Crisis Intervention Network?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Yes. And Patrick Frawley was the designee from that group and also Vermont Care Partners, Mary Graham McDowell. Again, they both have the lens of being a part of those very intense conversations that we had over the course of months, but also they provide the work and both were very clear that what we're doing right now isn't working everybody. And we need to find some way to do something different.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions? I guess not.

[Michael Boutin (Barre City; proponent of amendment)]: Thank you, John.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Thank you very much.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I guess we are done for the morning.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Maybe we can go