Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Okay, this is Senate Committee on Institutions. Welcome. Today is 03/31/2026, and we're going to be looking at three different bills today. First is five fifty and that's relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facility. Then we're going to look at H five fifty nine and act relating to the parole board. And then we're going to discuss H five forty nine. This is more of a process conversation and that's regarding state issued non driver identification cards for incarcerated folks and that you'll recall that was part of our of a transportation bill. So, first of all, identify ourselves so that you know who we are. Wendy Harrison. Jean Delfetti, representative Jean Delfetti, Barrytown for the record. Okay. Let's do

[Robert Plunkett]: Robert Plunkett, senator from Bennington.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: John Major, senator from Windsor.

[John Benson]: Senator Russ Ingalls, Essex. John Benson, Orange.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So, Ralph Gelfany, would you like to walk us through an introduction to five fifty? Yeah, you know, the committee, had a, formerly incarcerated transgender woman that came in and gave some testimony and that's kind of was the kickoff point for this bill. Believe, Ref Hedrick and Greg Brewer were the co sponsors on it. And, you know, we worked closely with DOC when we were refining the bill and it came a long way from, you know, its original starting point to what we worked through and got to you guys. I guess I'll just outline a couple quick things as far as this bill. A few things it does not do, it does not automatically place individuals in housing based solely on gender identity. It does not remove the Department of Corrections' ability to make safety based decisions and requires placements that create risk for incarcerated individuals, you know. The DOC ultimately still has its say on safety for both the transgender, gender first, and non binary folks, as well as the cisgender people. And it doesn't prevent the reassessment of placement decisions if safety concerns arise. What the bill does do is require the respectful identification and interaction with incarcerated individuals. It establishes procedures, governing, and searches. It creates a structured review process for housing placement decisions. And the bill's asking the legislative oversight committee to come back with an evaluation of what they felt best healthcare practices may be. And it also provides Vermont's adherence to the previous rate elimination act standards as put forth in January 2024. There were some changes at the federal level and Vermont, you know, we decided we wanted to be responsive to codifying what the permanent prison rape of elimination act standards were as of January 2024. And then, also provides for some ongoing, legislative reporting requirements. Section one, you know, obviously establishes the intent that, you know, gender identities deeply personal and individualized experience. Individuals may navigate their identity in many different ways and there is no single prescriptive path. Also, acknowledges that we're working in the reality that the Vermont correction system is a binary framework and not all individuals fit meaningfully into that framework. Section two basically just establishes what some of the definitions are. We worked with the EOC on this as far as, you know, what things were in statute and what is kind of common practice right now, realizing that this is like an evolving area of expertise, so to speak. And then it also aligns with what definitions are in the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Know, PREA was an exhaustive process, establishing a whole PREA guidelines. So it was years and years in review before they came up with that framework, and we're just kind of being responsive to that. Section three obviously is the gender identification and non discrimination and it doesn't prescribe any kind of penalties if people fail to use somebody's specific gender pronouns or honorifics, it allows DOC some oversight there if it looks like it's an ongoing problem, but also codifies that people have the right to ask to be referred to in a certain dignified way. For reached out to the searches, and we took a lot of testimony from DOC that they're actually working on revising their search policy for transgender, gender diverse, and non binary folks at this point anyway. So this kind of sets up a review for that, and they hope to have that in place. I think they had said by the first of June, and then, you know, the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee can review that and make sure it's in line with what's going on with the intent of this bill. Section five is the classification housing placement and it is, you know, just kind of acknowledges that transgender, gender diverse and intersex people have the ability to request certain placement, but at the end of the day, it needs to be reviewed by mental health and WellPath and DOC staff and be kind of a decision that's made in concert that best reflects what's safest and what's most appropriate for a given individual and also puts into the description that there should be some written documentation if a housing request is denied and a review period put in place so that that can be re evaluated from time to time, safety being of both cisgendered and gender conferters folks being the heart of what we're trying to get at. Then, I think we're gonna go, there's seven eighty nine, technical changes, they just align everything in statute. 11 goes on to this pre year reporting, just to make sure that we're continuing to get the prior reporting that we were sending as of January 2024, and make sure that going forward we're still getting those same types of reports to the state of Vermont so we can respond at boarding length. And then in Section 12, we're also prescribing the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee with the task of reviewing what is the most appropriate course of medical treatment and care standards, you know, as with the ones in Vermont, overspread it all. And that is about thirteenth C Effective Date, and happy to take any questions you may have. Okay. This is very comprehensive. Did you I didn't you were didn't

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: I I I wasn't, but I I have several.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Sure. Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: This is incredibly complicated.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: I mean, there's no doubt about that on on numerous different levels. It is it is going to be incredibly complicated for POC. The the current laws as far as bathrooms and and and things of that nature is as the person identifies Mhmm. It is is that along this line as as the person identifies.

[Speaker 0]: Well, this is to actually give more oversight to the term identifies. Okay. You know what I mean? This is, we worked hand in hand with the OC And this pretty much puts the policy and procedures that they're using already into statute and gives it a little bit more of a granular feeling. It is certainly always the purview of DOC to make housing assignments. So, this is not, this is not put in a statute that you can go into a facility and say, I identify as any sex and that's where you're gonna get placed at all. This does not open up any new doors. This simply puts into statute what DOC's current policies and procedures already are with safety being paramount no matter what and DOC having a final say. But it does give it some transparency so that there is some oversight to it and some written documentation so it can be reviewed as an ongoing thing, because this is on a continuum.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: And when you say the oversight, specifically, it's

[Speaker 0]: by There's a DOC panel that that's got medical professionals on it and some I know it's not exactly who else is on the panel. I can get back to you with that, but it's a number of entities within DOC and the medical provider WellPath to make that determination.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: But more than anything, it is DOC, as

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: we DOC are honest with

[Speaker 0]: has the final say. The end of the day, yeah, DOC in concert with their medical providers will have the final say at all times. And even if a classification is made and it turns out later that DOC feels there's a safety concern, they have the right to make new determinations.

[John Benson]: So this took their existing policy and put it in paper form. Why did it change from their existing policy? Because everything changes.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, honestly, we worked as closely with DOC as you could possibly imagine on this. Don't think that we put anything into statute at this point. We've got the review to the Justice Oversight Committee for the medical care, but we didn't add anything in there. We didn't do anything with their search procedure because the DOC and the new commissioner made it very clear that they're aware of this issue and we gave them the opportunity to go ahead and craft their search policy so that, and then gives us the ability to review it. But we were trying to be very receptive of what DOC's needs and concerns were. Think their biggest one was with some of the PREA stuff because the federal guidelines have kind of evaporated in some ways, and they want to make sure that the good work that they're doing with PREA continues to get done, and that was kind of the biggest need to put that into statute, that those guidelines are going to be followed. So all of that work went into the whole PREA thing in the first place, and Vermont's going to continue to track that information regardless of whether or not it's prescribed federally. Okay, great. Are there other questions? I have a couple of questions.

[John Benson]: I have a couple.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, do you wanna go ahead?

[Robert Plunkett]: So other than the PREA policies, and this will probably be a question for DOC, do you know which policies this mirrors? Like, quite literally.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, it it mirrors it mirrors their search policies to the to the best that it's going on right now. Like I said, either retail or search I don't have a a list of numbers now.

[Robert Plunkett]: I'll ask DOC for that. And in terms of those policies, I know DOC has policies and they also have rules. Are these just the policies that they put in place without going through rulemaking? Okay, okay.

[Speaker 0]: Great. So internal policy. It's just internal policy, yep. Okay, good. Alright, thank you. Great, so I have just a question about CRAIA. So, I don't think this is what is the case, but, DOC has been involved in CRAIA before 2024. Oh yeah, absolutely. What happened in, you know, when the new federal administration took over and did the, you know, two gender definition, there's some gray area as to whether or not they were gonna continue to report on numbers that affected gender diverse, transgender, intersex folks. Vermont wanted to be proactive and responsive to that to make sure that those numbers are still getting reported and those are being, those cases are being looked at specifically. Great, that's very helpful. So, we'll look at your witness list and talk to those folks. Is there anyone who's not on your list that you've realized could be helpful to us? You know, we didn't talk to any formerly incarcerated cisgender women. I think you can probably add something like that on there. I think it'd be really helpful if you had the witness that testified to us, kind of the genesis of the bill, and I know she'd be happy to come in. She's very familiar with the correctional system across so many different facilities, and has that lens to look at it. Because she was incarcerated for over ten years, I believe, and had been in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Mississippi and then back at CRCF. So she's got some really good information there. So I'd encourage you to have her in. We'll definitely have her. I'm trying to think of anybody else. Maybe Or not even specific people, but types of people. Types of people. Well, yeah, no, as far as like, I know there was one formerly incarcerated transgender male. We didn't have a transgender male come in, had a transgender female woman come in, so that might be helpful. It's not as common, but it's certainly a thing. I think that was

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: about it.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, alright. Well you did a lot of work so we appreciate you. Yeah, I wanted to get this right. Yeah, yeah, good, good. Any other questions, are we good? Okay, well thank you Thank very you. Now, obviously, you're available because you're right here. Thank you. I do have

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: a hard stop, like, a minute before 01:30. I do announce judiciary. Okay. Have you see what we cover and then come back. And

[Speaker 0]: We will hold for questions at this time. Thank you.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Do I have permission to share my screen? Yes, please. Alright. So for the record, Hillary Cheddar Eames for the Outsplitged City Council. Representative Galafetti, I think, gave a very thorough overview of the different sections. So I will hop right into the first. Just as a blag, I have two things to cover today. One is walking through the language, of course, any questions you have. And then there have been some legal developments related to laws like this that I wanted to make sure the committee was aware of. Okay. Alright. So section one is the intent section. It expresses kind of three main main ideas that transition is unique to each person. Not everyone who is transgender or gender diverse always transitions the same way, and it does not always involve medical treatment or medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That's subsection a. Subsection b expresses the intent to recognize that there are challenges to transition in correctional settings and that regardless of those challenges, transgender, gender diverse, and intersex inmates deserve respect, agency, and dignity regardless of how they're transitioning. Subsection c expresses the intent to recognize that transgender, gender diverse, and intersex individuals are at a higher risk in correctional settings for abuse, harassment, and sexual violence. So I guess in light of time, interrupt if you have questions, but I'll keep moving through. Section two, as Brett Galvetti mentioned, is the definition section. So this would add several new definitions just for use in title 28. So they're not broadly applicable to all the BSAs. It's just for use in title 28 in corrections. The you can answer more questions, but the the quick number reference about the policy for your question was policy 430 2 dated March 2026. And that will be where the definitions were adapted from. And the class of Christian housing language will also be the that policy would be the reference for that. So there were some modifications made

[Speaker 0]: to have it I see

[Robert Plunkett]: the number of the policy. Yeah.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Yes. Four thirty two. Go ahead. And that should be the one dated March 2026. There was a very recent prohibition on reviews. Thanks. So some changes were made in section two from DOC policy so that the definitions were expressed in the way that we express statutory definitions, but they're otherwise in alignment with how GFC currently uses and understands these terms. So this section has a definition for gender diverse, for gender pronan, for honorific, for intersex, and for transgender. It also recognizes that there is already a definition of gender identity in one VSA one forty four. Gender identity means an individual's actual or perceived gender identity or gender related characteristics intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender identity, regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth. Is that yes.

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry to have a question. So so this just references one forty four doesn't have the language that you just said?

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Correct. Okay. And the reference means that if the definition in section in one VSA one forty four were ever changed, this would change with it. Okay. If the committee wanted to fix the definition as it currently is, then that would be a reason to not reference the section, but instead kind of repeat the language. Just wanted to provide at least a verbal reference for what that intention is. Alright. So moving forward to section three, and I realize I'm not tracking on my screen. I will do a better job of that. Section three is on page four, starting on line 14. This would add a new section entitled 28. This section covers two things. One, gender identification and address, and two, nondiscrimination. So subsection a describes how the department think first broadly says the department shall ensure that all individuals are addressed in a manner consistent with their gender identity. And then the rest of this subsection walks through how the department gives the opportunity to each individual to express their gender identity. And for transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individuals, they can request the gender of staff who may perform a lawful search. That's consistent with what DOC's search policy has been. And, of course, as Rick already mentioned, to the extent that there are upcoming changes to the search policy, there's a review process in place to make any necessary updates here. Subdivision two, an individual shall not be disciplined for refusing to answer or for not disclosing complete information in response to the questions in subdivision one. So this really is the department giving individuals an opportunity to provide information, but there's no requirement. There's no discipline for not providing it. Subdivision three expresses that even if it's not an intake, if an individual wants to provide information at any point, they can do so. And subdivision four, the department will provide staff and contractors with gender responsive training proportional to their level of interaction with inmates. So DOC testimony described that some staff don't have direct interaction with inmates, some have much more, and that training would be appropriate to their level of interaction. Subsection B, when the depart if and when the department decides not to accommodate a transgender, diverse, or intersex individuals search classification or housing placement request, it cannot be based solely on the individual's anatomy, including genitalia, other physical characteristics, or diverse gender expression. So though that section is an overarching section that applies to department work generally, and some of the next sections are a little bit

[Speaker 0]: more to this.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: And I know we and to be respectful of your time, I'm not going to this I'm gonna make I have a question to that. Mhmm. Because it doesn't tell me that what what you're going to base it on at that stuff. You know, you know, it it real and and I and I particularly with this, you don't like to keep things open.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Absolutely. The preview is that an upcoming section will provide at least some of that answer.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: So what you're saying is, senator Major, shut up, and I'll get to you.

[Speaker 0]: Not at all. No.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Or vague. Record your report. Question will be answered.

[John Benson]: Fair

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: enough. Five steps from the test method.

[Speaker 0]: I'll probably have the

[John Benson]: same question, and probably Ingalls gonna shout too.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And I I noted that. Well, so What? Yeah.

[John Benson]: Can this inmate be searched like any other inmate?

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Yes.

[John Benson]: Okay. Okay. And

[Speaker 0]: we're probably not gonna get all the way through anyway, so. Alright, so we'll see.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Section four is adding a section about searches. Subsection a just describes that this shall apply to all lawful searches, any lawful searches. The kinds of searches that DOC explained they do are closed searches, unclogged searches, urinalysis, and body scans. So by listing them, the section is saying it applies to all of them. Subsection b is actually a PREA standard. The House Corrections Committee decided it was important to have reflected here. The department shall not search or physically examine or request that contractors search or physically examine any individual for the sole purpose of determining the individual's genital status. Subsection c provides at least as to searches that the department is considering on an individualized basis, a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex individual's request about the gender of staff to perform a search. But ultimately, the department is making that decision based on the individual's health and safety and whether accommodating the request would pose risks to safety or security. So that could be to other inmates or to staff. And the DOC testimony was that as they are revising their search policy, those are the kinds of things that they are considering in implementing those revisions. Section five adds a section right after the existing section on classification. In title 28, it would be a new section, seven zero one about classification and housing placement determinations. Subsection a, just as the department shall make classification housing placement determinations for transgender, gender diverse, and intersex inmates consistent with this section. B, the department shall ask transgender, gender diverse, or intersex inmates to specify their request to housing placement during intake. So they have the opportunity to provide their view or request as to what housing placement is appropriate for them. And then subsection c, this is at the top of page seven. The department shall make classification and housing placement determinations for transgender, gender diverse, or intersex inmates based on the department's multidisciplinary review panels. So that is DOC's current system. They have two levels of multidisciplinary review panels, one at the facility and one centrally. This adds that the multidisciplinary review panels shall consult with various folks with medical and mental health expertise or who have training aligned with nationally recognized standards for gender affirming care. And there was testimony that that currently happens, but this would kind of include that as a as a requirement. Subsection d provides, I think, more information in response to your question, senator Major, about if the department can't look at these things, what can they look at? So similar to the search language, the department's considering on an individualized basis whether a placement would best support inmates' health or safety or pose risks to safety or security. DOC described that. They sometimes will help make that an appropriate or determine that an inmate request is an appropriate at a certain time, but that with steps or after a period of time, it might be appropriate. So that second sentence in subsection d expresses that this might be more of an ongoing conversation. Subdivision one, the department shall give serious consideration to the inmates classification or housing placement request. But if the department finds that accommodating that request would pose an unreasonable risk to institutional safety or security, the inmate's health or safety, or the safety or security of other inmates or staff, the department may decide that it cannot accommodate the request. So House of Corrections wanted to balance respect for transgender, gender diverse, or intersect individuals request based on their identity and their expressed identity while also reconciling the department's safety and other needs to make decisions. And as Ralph Rebecca that he mentioned, the statute for the bill doesn't change anything about the Department of Corrections ultimate authority to make decisions based on the kinds of things that it has to make decisions based on, including institutional security and safety and safety and security of all inmates and staff. On top of page eight, subdivision two, this also adds that the department shall make classification and housing placement determinations on an objective basis. Subsection e adds that documentation requirement that representative mentioned that if the department is not accommodating an inmate's classification or housing placement request, the department needs to document the specific reason. Subsection f, this essentially says that just like the department has to consider these things on an individualized basis for placement at a given facility in state, if they are considering an out of state placement, they have to consider the same kinds of things. And they should also coordinate with any out of state facility about reassessing placement determinations. And then I have an eye on time, so I will kind of finish this section and then I have to duck out. But subsection g talked about the department reassessing placement. So as representative Galbetti mentioned, the department will reassess placement if the inmate requested or raises concerns about safety or if the inmate engages in misconduct, including conduct that poses a safety risk to the inmate or other inmates. Both of those things would trigger department reassessing a house placement. And then the final subsection in section five is the top of page nine. With regard to bed assignment and housing placement decisions, the department shall give a transgender, gender diverse, or intersex inmate's perception of health and safety serious consideration. So the department will seriously consider selecting the inmate with whom the inmate is housed to best support safety and security. And if there's an articulable risk to the inmate, department will remove the risk where possible or otherwise alleviate the risk. I'll stop there.

[Speaker 0]: I think that's a good place to do.

[Hilary Chittenden Eames]: Then I'm happy to I will be back later on another bill, but I just need to come back on the rest of this. Okay. Terrific. Thank you

[Speaker 0]: very much. See you soon. So, next item, I don't think we should discuss this now until we get the rest of the long term. So our next item is at 01:45, so we'll take a fifteen minute recess. So we are adjourned.