Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Crank the wind. Let's go. Thank you. Okay. We are live. Today is Friday, 04/03/2026. This is Senate institutions and we have one item on the agenda, which is H two ninety four and act related to telecommunication services and wages and correctional facilities. And so we're going to hear from the sponsor and the Legislative Council and Department of Corrections. So you all know us, so I think we won't we will dismiss with the introductions and start with Representative Connor Casey, who is the sponsor. And so you will let us know what you were thinking about and what your goals are on this. Thank you for being here.

[Rep. Connor Casey]: Sure, great to see everybody apologize for being at home. We got a bit of a plague up upstairs in corrections so didn't want to inflate the whole senate as well and unlike John I didn't even dress up so I feel extra bit here. So we'll take you through the bill a wee bit here. I'm not the sponsor I was the reporter on the floor. Okay. So to give you the evolution of it. I think it's a bill that started with pretty big dreams there as far as making telecommunications free and sort of raising the wages the inmates for the work they do there. Sort of got hit with the wall of reality though and realized we needed a lot more information before we could make intelligent decision. So that really was the evolution of the bill in its current state which is just a couple study committees really. So the bill looks at two issues there it looks at one) telecommunications and two) wages. Why does this approach matter? Currently incarcerated workers in Vermont earn between 25¢ and a buck 25 an hour. Phone calls are about 3¢ a minute and video calls are about 16¢ a minute. Messages like texts 25¢ a minute. So like even a modest use of this can really add up there. And for telecom we learned quite a bit about it and spoke to some other states and so there's some real evidence that if you can increase the number of phone calls people are making This really improves outcomes for families and there was some compelling data as far as reducing recidivism too and better reentry success. Letting folks have more phone calls whether those would be completely free or not, I think would be up to a study. The states who have moved to sort of free phone calls, Massachusetts being the big one, they obviously saw substantial upfront costs in doing this and operational changes. But they found that over time that sort of evened out there. So on wages, similarly, we looked at there might be some ethical concerns about this and policy concerns about current compensation levels. But we also had questions about the budget impacts, know, if the changes are made there. So that's kind of like the tension that the bill sits with all this stuff. Section one, I don't know how much you want me to into this. I think John will give you the run through. Just the intent, Support and rehabilitation by maintaining personal and family connections. One thing that I think really resonated with me guys is, know, when we looked at who was actually paying for phone calls and paying for commissary, it's not really the inmates. It's like 82% the inmates family who's often low income. These families often like you know going to great debt while a family member's in prison. So, you know, even though we look at like sort of the justice component of people being in there in addition to rehabilitation, it takes a real toll on the people they're leaving behind when they go to prison. And I just wanted to put that. In the intent, we want to reduce barriers,

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: move away from reliance on for profit correctional systems, I think we do in every area in corrections, and ensure that future policy decisions are really grounded in data there. So the telecommunication study, it'll be section two, full description of

[Rep. Connor Casey]: the current system, contracts, usage costs, and analysis of alternative models. And that's where we'd probably look at other states. We also had a couple of companies in who provide like nonprofit companies who provide these services that was really informative. So I'd like to dive into that deeper, but we'd also like to get a sense of what the startup costs look like, what the ongoing operational costs are, and what the budget impacts are. So you know and an assessment of benefits like you know safety and facility operations and maintaining support systems. I represented correctional officers for like nine years. I was a union rep really like one thing I learned was just like management inside the walls of a prison. It's so helpful to have as many tools as possible. And one tool could be somebody who might be in an escalated state having that phone call with like a loved one to calm them down or something so that that's valuable for the employees inside too. The incarcerated wage study pretty simple. Where are they currently being paid? What types of work are being performed? I believe it's mostly like kitchen or custodial at this point. Could that be expanded? And just for comparison, know what would that look like if you ever had like contractors or state employees do that? So that's kind of the overview. Again, really ambitious build to start, really scaled down a couple studies, but studies we should have, I think occasionally, just to see where we're at there and if we can do better. So that's it folks.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: All right, well don't go anywhere yet. Senator Ingalls has a comment or a question.

[Russ Ingalls]: Thanks representative for the law crew. So you started out with the ambitious bill and it crashed and burned. Why don't you just kill the bill instead of going into where we already have these people that are over, they can't even get done with the work that they need to get done. Why don't just kill the bill and just do the studies within the committees of itself?

[Rep. Connor Casey]: Yeah, you know, saw real benefits, especially in the telecommunications. As far as having like a connection with the family, maybe that connection isn't free senator but maybe it's a reduced cost or maybe it's more than a couple free phone calls a month you know to keep connections with like your children so when you get out of prison you know you have a deeper more meaningful connection. The recidivism rates that we saw weren't nothing. It was like about fifteen percent I think from people who have that regular mode of communications. So as far as a rehabilitation component you know we saw real value in that as well.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right, and so many of our, the folks who are incarcerated have already been incarcerated and we could reduce our costs if we had fewer people in the prisons and we call them correctional facilities, but the correctional part is lacking in my opinion. I just have a couple questions. This looks like a very thorough study or it would be a thorough study. And I don't know if Senator Ingalls, if you're concerned about the corrections department actually doing the study, but we can talk to their representative later today who will be here. But I would very much appreciate this information. So, I thank you for your work and things do take a long time because we're dealing with big systems and think this is helpful. So any other questions for Connor and Connor you can stay or Representative Casey can stay as long as you want.

[Rep. Connor Casey]: All right, I actually may skedaddle if you don't mind there and take some more.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: It is fine.

[Rep. Connor Casey]: But it's great to see everybody. The last piece that I didn't mention was probably need a special focus on the folks down in Mississippi too because obviously they're know a thousand miles away from their families and we just wanted to make sure whatever CoreCivic's doing is consistent with what we're doing in state as well.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: All right that makes sense. Okay.

[Rep. Connor Casey]: Thanks very much, folks. Have a great weekend. Bye.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Feel better. You too. Okay. Counselor Gray.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Hello?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yes. Move the bill.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So John Gray, office of legislative counsel. Again, I'm sorry I'm home too. I actually was in this morning, but do not feel especially fit to be in. Rep Casey actually left me with very little to describe because he basically did walk through the whole of the bill, but I will screen share and walk through the text just so that you can see. As he described, this is two sets of reports. They're not through legislative staff. Right? This is just with DOC. And to the points that were just being made, and I'm sure you're gonna hear from DOC later this afternoon, but I did want to point out that they were in the room while these discussions were happening. And I think that it was back and forth just to ensure that this was within the capacities of their department. I'm sure that they can speak to that themselves. So let me screen share real quick. Can you see this alright? Yeah. Is it is it small? Or It's good. It's fine. Okay. So h two ninety four, an act relating to telecommunication services and wages and correctional facilities. It starts off with an intent section, and this gets at some of the last point, I think, that the chair was raising about correctional being the word that's used here. So this bill is expressive of a particular intent for how correctional facilities should function. As you see here, it is the intent of the general assembly to create conditions of incarceration that encourage the development and maintenance of the personal supports necessary for rehabilitation, mitigate the disruptions to family and connections caused by incarceration by reducing communications barriers, divest the state from the for profit prison industry, and inform state correctional policy decision making with data, fiscal analysis, and agency expertise. Section two is the evaluation of telecommunication services, and in particular, this is trying to look at if there's the option of providing a no cost to inmates or their families model of telecommunication services. So both of the reports that you're gonna see in this are due the end of this year, December 1 excuse me. So on or before 12/01/2026, DOC shall provide to the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions and the Senate Committee on Institutions a written report evaluating options for providing those no cost telecommunication services to inmates in the department's custody. And then there's a set of enumerated items that DOC needs to look to. So the first of these in Subdivision 1, to have a point of comparison, you need to know what the existing model is, and so that's what's in Subdivision 1. Describe the current telecommunication service model, including usage rates, cost, and contract terms under existing provider arrangements. The call out to usage rates, probably fairly intuitive, but as you'll see later on, part of what would be identified as a cost of switching to a no cost model for inmates is that you might expect an uptick in usage rates right at the point that you don't have to pay, for those pieces. So that's part of the evaluation that you're gonna see here. But first, establishing the baseline. What is the current model? On page two, describe alternative options for providing telecommunication services, including through nonprofit providers or as a regulated public utility. I would call out that the first of these through nonprofit providers was more substantively explored in the house corrections committee. We didn't get so much into usage of as a regulated public utility. It was sort of an idea that was floated. It might be useful, but I could expect that turning into something larger if that's what comes back. So I just wanted to flag that the nonprofit piece, was explored in more depth in committee. Three, analyze the cost of the state of each alternative, including, one, what are your startup costs? And in particular, you see this second clause both with and without Wi Fi. As you're gonna see in the capital bill when it comes over, there's some money dedicated to DOC for installation of Wi Fi in correctional facilities. But currently, as you know, it's been a waiting game on that front. So as you can imagine, evaluating these options is gonna differ depending on what the technological capacities of the correctional facilities are from day one. So this is saying to cover all ground, what would those startup and transition costs be both with and without Wi Fi? So those are startup costs. You also need to look at what are the ongoing operational administrative costs. What are the comparisons to the current model? What impacts would there be on department budgets? The piece that I flagged before in Subdivision E, anticipated changes in service usage and volume. And f, any anticipated benefits or savings, including reasonably ascertainable impacts on behavior, security, safety, and an incarcerated person's ability to sustain support systems. I did wanna poll pause on this one. The changes the analysis that you're seeing in subdivisions a through e, you can think of these as more obviously quantitative. Right? You're cashing these costs out in dollar figures, impacts on budgets, comparisons to current model. F is meant to embrace both quantitative and qualitative measures, and that's why you see the call out to impacts on behavior, security, safety, and incarcerated abilities person an incarcerated person's ability to sustain support systems. I think representative Casey did a good job of setting up the committee's framing on this. As you could hear from his discussion, the committee kind of has hopes that the benefits that will be shown will relate to reduced recidivism, the ability to sustain family connections, to return more easily to society after being incarcerated, and potentially to having safety benefits within the facility if folks are essentially less agitated by receiving regular phone calls. So that's some of what's captured here. And I did also wanna flag this reasonably ascertainable. As you can imagine, it would be quite an ask, if you didn't have some kind of, mental state modifier here. If you just ask for the department to identify any anticipated benefits or savings, that could be quite massive. So the reasonably ascertainable is included to make sure that the DOC's task is within a sort of reasonable scope, that they don't need to go aggressively out of their way to identify these pieces. It's just meant to be whatever is reasonably ascertainable, which would be their judgment to determine. Lastly yep. Go ahead.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: You okay with the questions?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So did they spend a lot of time on that definition? Because that's that's pretty complicated, the benefits or savings.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. This was actually one that received more back and forth than many others. The first iteration of this clause had spoken to impacts on public safety and behavior, I believe. And part of the committee's thinking was they wanted to be clear that the analysis was not intended to be restricted to what happens just within the walls of the facility. They were trying to get it benefits that might accrue outside and after the duration of someone's time in incarceration. And what I do recall from the discussion there, and it would be helpful to ask the Department of Corrections, is that I recall, I believe it was Haley Somers saying that for A through E, you could expect more direct responses right, but that the the responses to subdivision F would be expected to be a bit more speculative. I think that the committee was comfortable with that answer. So this was one that was finagled to try to make sure that it could measure both benefits inside and outside correctional facilities and both during and after the term of someone's incarceration.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. And does it does not now say public safety, but is public safety intended to be part of safety?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And I I yes. It is conceivably captured within these pieces. So impacts on behavior, security, safety, abilities. Yeah.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and and, of course, part of the concern there was that if you exclusively used public, right, as a modifier for safety, are you suggesting that you don't want updates on the safety within the correctional facility? So safety was thought to be a broader term that could encompass both.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. That's very helpful.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So just to recap the pieces we just went through, that report on telecommunications service model would need to describe the current model, describe alternative options, analyze the cost of each alternative, and then the piece that we hadn't gotten to yet here in sub four, identify implementation, operational, and transition considerations for each alternative, including the administrative, technological, and contractual requirements, operational changes, implementation timeline, and any required statutory, regulatory, or policy updates. So this is trying to say, you've got an evaluation of the baseline. You've got a description of alternative models, some cost comparisons. Now if the legislature was interested in implementing any of these particular options, you know, set out in this report some implementation, operationalization concerns that the legislature has taken under consideration, including timeline and what kinds of statutory regulatory policy updates would be required so that beginning next legislative session, the committees of jurisdiction or the legislature as a whole would be in a position to have made bill requests and the like, depending on what the responses are. You may get responses that suggest this isn't operational, This is to make possible legislative changes next session.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: K.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's a, which is the content of the report itself. B is describing a set of stakeholders, and there is a qualifier for this that will make it seem more manageable than it might seem at first ask. So in conducting its evaluation of options for providing no cost telecommunication services, DOC shall, when practicable, and that's the modifier I was talking about, when practicable, DOC shall consult with the following stakeholders. The Public Utility Commission, they're brought in because of that call out to potentially regulating as a public utility. Right? On page three, the Joint Fiscal Office, one or more nonprofit providers of corrections telecommunication services with operational expertise, and I think that the committee would be able to point you to at least one of these from whom they heard testimony. CoreCivic, this is the contractor for the Mississippi piece, which representative Casey was speaking to. Here from and this was added on the floor. This was not something that was contained in initial report as it came out of the committee, but was added by an amendment from representatives Tina and Donahue. Incarcerated Vermonters, formerly incarcerated Vermonters, and organizations representing incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals. I will note that conceivably, these were captured in six, but this is ensuring that they are a stakeholder if it's practicable to reach out to these folks. Representatives of families of incarcerated Vermonters or organizations representing families of those incarcerated Vermonters, community based reentry service providers, justice reform organizations, the Prison Research and Innovation Network, FREDN, and any other stakeholders or subject matter experts identified by the commissioner as necessary for the evaluation. So quite a lengthy list, and you can see kind of the balance that the committee, that the house was trying to provide, but I did wanna just draw your attention to that shall when practicable. So it is not mandatory that it is quite difficult to reach out to all of these stakeholders, but it'd be done. And again, that's sort of left to their discretion, what is practicable, right?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: So

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I should Go ahead. Sorry.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, so I was thinking the one practicable would be the items that would be discussed, not the individuals, but it's the stakeholders themselves. Okay. Interesting. All right. Thank you for pointing that out.

[John Benson]: So John, it includes the Joint Fiscal Office in that list. Is it usual for the legislature to ask an agency to do something and then consult with the legislative fiscal office?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is less typical, I would say. Obviously, you can see that legislative council is not included here. That's not through me denying that from happening. But it is it is certainly less right. You would look at this as typically you know, I would note that during representative Casey's framing, he had said study committees, but these aren't study committees in which you would expect regular legislative staffing. Right? This is an executive report. This is coming from the department kind of on their terms. As I've talked about a number of times, they have discretion in a number of places as to who to reach out to and the like. So I would say I am less familiar with the legislative staff office showing up as a piece of a pretty clearly executive report. It's not to say that it couldn't happen, but yes, I kind of agree with the where you're coming from.

[Russ Ingalls]: And do you recall

[John Benson]: if JFO was consulted on that? So Scott By the by the way,

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: believe that Scott Moore was in the room during this, but I do not think that there was an explicit not while I was in there. I do not recall there being an explicit ask, JFO, can you handle this obligation? I don't recall that.

[Russ Ingalls]: Great.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Thanks. So we can take care of that. We could Yes. Yes. Yeah, that's really interesting too. Did they talk about having a consultant do this?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In place of the department itself?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, or have the department get a consultant. But I know there's no funding. I don't see any But was there a discussion about that?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do not recall that, but Haley may know more. I think I was in the room for most of these Yeah. Discussions and I don't recall that coming up.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. We'll we'll ask Haley. She she should be here any minute. Alright. And the just. Yes. To be picky the number five, the incarcerated vernaculars, with an and in there, to me that means that we need to have all three categories, which might be challenging.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I hear you. I hear you. I mean, that's a you're coming from a good place, which is thinking about how the modify the conjunctions work. And typically, my response would be that I agree with you. But because the lead into this remains as practicable, I think Okay. It's sort of

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Then I won't worry.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. But you're definitely thinking in the right place.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. Then just for the committee, One thing I'm thinking is print might have the capacity to actually do this work. So I'll I'll talk to him. We'll talk to Haley about that. I'll ask Haley about that. Which could be helpful. All right. So let's keep going.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So subsection C, which is the last of this section covering the telecommunications evaluation report, is just ensuring a check-in. So subsection C on line 14, the Department of Corrections shall provide to the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee for the committee's analysis and input a first draft of the report on or before September 15 and an updated draft of the report on or before 11/15/2026. The first thing I would do is remind you that the due date is December 1. So that's why you see the November 15 date for the updated draft. Starting with the first draft, I think that this serves two functions. One is to ensure that work has begun before a particular date. Right? If you're delivering a first draft report on September 15, you can't wait until November to start that report. So one is just ensuring that the report has begun and that there's time for joint legislative justice oversight to express any input if it's not headed in the direction that the legislature kind of so intends. And then the updated draft report on November 15, while you might quibble over the use of the word updated, like you could change one comma and it would technically be an updated draft. Right? The thinking here is that you're not requesting the final report because that's due December 1, and that this is within a close enough period to that final report date that this would be a meaningful updated draft that basically gives you a preview of the final draft. There had been some debate about using near final draft, but because it might be responsive to input from the committee, I think they were comfortable with this use of updated. So C is just a check-in to ensure that progress is moving along and that there is some off session legislative check.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. And just a comment on that. I think that's a great idea because then it's wider scope of folks who are involved in this system. That's where you

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: guys get support. Yeah. Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. So now section three.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Perfect. So section two was your telecommunications evaluation report, and section three is a wage impact evaluation report. This one's a bit more intuitive, but I will walk through. So same due date. On and before 12/01/2026, the Department of Corrections shall provide to the same committees of jurisdiction, House Corrections and Institutions, and the Senate Committee on Institutions, a written report evaluating the impacts of current wages for inmates in the department's custody. And one, collects and analyzes the current wage level for inmates, so knowing what the baseline is. Two, you can think of this too as trying to get at what would the costs of internalizing the share of labor currently borne by inmates be if the state had to internalize those costs? So two is saying, identify categories of labor that are performed by inmates that would otherwise be performed by the state and estimate the cost to the state of providing those same services through state employees or contracted vendors, including wage and benefit costs. Basically, this would be a way of showing if the state is and what they are gaining by having labor done in this particular way, and it would show you what the cost would be on kind of the typical market. Three is comparing different wage impact scenarios and estimating the impact of wage adequacy improvements on outcomes for inmates. I'm gonna pause on the wage impact scenarios language. This is things like determining amount of hours corresponding to a particular dollar threshold. Right? So you can imagine this translating pretty readily into what it takes to buy a certain number of minutes. If you're trying to purchase minutes for telecommunication services, you could see how different wages would affect the ability to make calls and the like. Estimating the impact of wage adequacy improvements on outcomes for inmates, this harkens back to some of evaluation that we talked about with the telecommunications service model evaluation, and so you see that in the call out here, such as maintenance of family contacts, compliance with restitution and support obligations. This was part of the committee's thinking that changing wages for inmates might better support their ability to provide restitution to victims and any kind of family support obligations they have. Improvements on reentry success and participation in facility work programs. Lastly, this report would assess the relationship between current wage levels and the ability of work program participants to purchase telecommunication services and commissary items. This might seem quite simple. The lower the wages, the harder it is, obviously, to buy these particular things. But this would help draw out in some detail so that then when the legislature or the committees of jurisdiction are considering these issues next session or in a subsequent section, they have data they can point to to say what those effects would be. So that is the pool of the wage impact evaluation report, and this would all be effective on passage.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[John Benson]: So, John, with these two reports, I don't expect you'll have an answer now, but, if you know of or can find a similar act that had been implemented in the past, requested some sort of comparable report that we could then look at that and then see what report actually was created. Sure, sure.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That would be helpful for me.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay.

[John Benson]: Because I know just because last year as both senator Ingalls started, his question with is that they're trying to do less reports. And I just like to see if there's something that we might be able to see, not necessarily from DOC, but any agency, but see something about, you know, what sort of report quality there has been in the past that would be useful.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I can I can definitely look for something like that? And it brings to mind oh gosh, if it will stay in my mind. Oh gosh. It has slipped me. I'm sorry. Am not the sharpest I've been today.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: You're sick today. Save yourself. You get it right. I have a question about your question is when you say similar reports on this topic

[Russ Ingalls]: No.

[John Benson]: No. Just in general general something common.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I do recall what I was thinking. I know that the genesis of this request in section three for the wage impact evaluation, while I don't think it maps really that closely to the model for it, the direction I was initially given when I drafted section three was that last year, I believe in the budget, there had been a request, I think it was in the budget, for DOC to evaluate as part of some larger report impacts on wages. It wasn't drawn out in significant language, and part of the committee's ask to have this included here was animated from this belief that they had not gotten all of the information they wanted from that report under the budget. This is vaguely what I recall happening. I will say that when I built out this section, it wasn't at all modeled on that cited report because when I looked to whatever that underlying language is, it was pretty thinly related to this topic. But, hopefully, that helps provide some context that the committee has in the past wanted similar information, and whatever previous request went out, whether through them or someone else, did not result in the information that they had wanted.

[Russ Ingalls]: Okay.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hence, maybe the specificity that you see here.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So it's the opposite of what you want. It was a report that wasn't sufficient.

[John Benson]: Well, no. Send you an email, John, and share it with the committee if I can figure out my question better than I

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I think I understand if I can state back, and then you can tell me if I'm thinking correctly. You want to know for a comparable type report ask of a state agency what quality report has resulted on a similar time frame, basically. That's the way I hear the question. Yes. Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. Actually and if you see a bunch of them, get it sent some.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Alright. I think we're good with the walk through. Yes? Anybody have any questions? I guess because I'm curious about the floor conversation, but we can I don't know if you're the person, John, to ask about Yeah?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mean, what I would say about I'm probably not the best, but I can relay what I do recall of this. It came up on second reading. Representative Chenna posed the question to, I believe, representative Casey, who was a reporter, asking if incarcerated Vermonters were intended to be stakeholders. And representative Casey said, well, they hadn't explicitly been called out but could conceivably fit within another bucket. And then, he and representative Donahue requested this amendment just to ensure that those most affected by the policy would be heard. And then perhaps most importantly to your question, I do not recall this being at all controversial on the floor. Right? I think this is something that was included with some ease.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. And you're welcome to stick around or do what you need to do. So have a good weekend.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you very much. I'll see you guys next week then or sometime. Yeah.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Thanks. Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Bye. So, Hailey, if you would like to come, thank you for being here. Oh, yeah. Thanks for having me. Yeah. So, we heard from Representative Casey and John Gray and have a general idea of what this is about. Do you want to tee it up from the view of the administration?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Sure, yeah. Okay. For the record, Haley Slummer, Director of Communications for DOC. I apologize, I'm a little late, I may be delving into information might have already been given to you. So sorry if that happens, but the bill as originally drafted essentially would have mandated DOC to absorb the costs of telecommunications for incarcerated people, pay incarcerated people fair wages, so the state minimum wage, and evaluate its commissary contracts, and DOC's evaluation of the implications, particularly financially, of the original draft of the bill. It would have resulted in really significant financial deficits, But certainly, respect the theme of the conversation and the ideas that the legislators brought to the table. And so that kind of resulted in reworking the bill to instead create several studies to really delve into what the financial and social implications of both making telecommunications free for incarcerated people and paying them fair wages and how that would play out before putting it into legislation and passing something that the department might not be able to absorb financially. We did not

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: know that. Okay.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: So that was was original.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. Heard that it changed, but Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Good to hear. Yeah, and the

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Corrections and Institutions Committee briefly discussed this bill last year, so, and it was 2020 or 2024 when it was first introduced, and then put the conversation on pause, revisited again this year, and decided that this would be the best path forward to keep the conversation alive without implementing something that would frankly be pretty dire to DOC's budget right now.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And without knowing the implications. Yeah. So, did DOC do even just a quick analysis of that cost, those costs? Yes, we did.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: And I'm happy to share that information.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: That would be great. Yeah. And we can get it next week if you want.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: That's okay. I do have it in front of me. Okay. So, for the telecommunications costs, did and, again, these are kind of, like, very brief Uh-huh. Estimates for purposes of testimony on the bill. But we assess the call volume from 11/01/2025 to 01/31/2026. So, like roughly a quarter, and then multiply that by four to try and get an idea of what it might be for a year. And so, for telecommunications, which is both phone calls, video calls, voice messages, and then kind of like messaging through the tablet, so something akin to an email or a text message, it would have cost the department around $400,000 annually to make all of these services free. That being said, there have been other states that have removed costs for telecommunications for impartial people. And because there's no more costs, legalization goes up and they've seen that those costs double. So, this is a estimation based on the current services, but it's challenging to say whether this would remain the same number if there were unlimited services that people could access

[Russ Ingalls]: for free. See how expensive something is, make it free.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Yeah.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Guess the thing I have to look at, and the study is fine, guess, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said to raise charges of wages from what they are now to what would be the minimum wage in Vermont.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: But she hasn't told us that number yet,

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: right? Yes. So we did an estimate of that as well. And again, it would be challenged.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, the $4.81

[Russ Ingalls]: wage piece, the 400 ks plus is kind of an operational piece, would there also need to be some capital expenditures? Did you look at that in order to actually implement this if we went in that direction?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah, that's a good question, and I apologize, I should have provided a little bit more context as to how telecommunications currently take place in our commercial facilities. We have a contract with a vendor called IC Solutions. It's actually a $0 contract. And so, they have implemented these tablet, sort of iPads that are accessible for incarcerated people at all six of our facilities. And the cost for the contract is essentially through the services that the incarcerated people pay for. The tablets themselves are IC Solutions tablets, so they're not state owned. And while, you know, can't exactly say how things would play out if DOC were to absorb costs, whether things would look a little bit different, but it's possible that we would just maintain the same equipment and contract through IC Solutions, but we will be absorbing the cost for that. Does that make sense?

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Yeah. Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So, the 400,000, was that based on what the incarcerated people are and their families are paying now? Yes. Okay.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah, so it's just the cost.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So, the rates would be the same in your estimation?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah, the rates would be the same. The equipment is already provided through our contract. It's really just the cost of service, which again, like this is an estimate on current volume and it is likely to go up if it's free and there's no cap.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right, and those are at the rates that they're paying now? Yes. So that's another variable. I mean a

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: lot of these,

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: you know, this is good to know, but there's a lot of moving parts.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: For sure. Yeah. And the rates are set right now. They're accessible on our website. Can also read them out but to I can also provide them to you in writing so that I'm not just listing a bunch of numbers off. So, the rates will likely stay consistent unless something significant changes.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. So, then the wages, are we ready to talk, learn about the wages? Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Yeah, I mean that's gonna be a big number, because you're going from, what's the old time type start, was it a dollar 25, what's the minimum wage now? 16?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Somewhere in the teens, yeah. Well, the number I always use is $5 a day. I don't know if that's the

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: number Yeah, to

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: so

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: we have work programs in all six of our correctional facilities. They provide a variety of jobs. A few examples of this would be someone working in the kitchen as a chef, someone who might be cleaning the living unit, someone who might be doing laundry, someone who might be an open ears coach, which is a peer to peer coaching program that we have in our correctional facilities. The range of pay for these jobs is typically from about $1 to, I think the highest paying job might be around $8 or $9 and the pay is daily, it is not hourly. The only facility jobs that pay hourly are the jobs in the Vermont Correctional Industries license plate shop. And that ranges from, I think around 25¢ to a dollar and 65 and that's hourly, but the rest are daily. So, did an estimate based off of the amount of individuals who currently have jobs and facilities and how much they're making. And we estimated it would be around $12,000,000 annually in pure wages. This doesn't take into account things like benefits, overtime, workers' comp, things that would need to be taken into account if people were essentially working full time in our correctional facilities and making minimum wage in the way that I think this bill contemplates. So, again, a rough estimate.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, going back to the, what we're paying now, the $1 and the $9, are those the bottom and the top of

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: the daily range? Yeah. That's typically the the range and pay. Okay. So, like, for example- 12,000,000

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: if it were they were

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: paid minimum wage. Yeah. For example, breakfast cook right now at Southern State makes $7 a day, but a janitor at Southern State right now makes $1 a day. So you really have, like, the range in pay depending on the job that they're doing.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And then can they, where do they put the money? I mean, do they have accounts?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Do you

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: get us on accounts?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: You know, kinda depends. Some people will put them towards, like, commissary or telecommunications costs. Some people might save that money. I think the best person to answer this question would be an incarcerated person who has a job in

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: a facility.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Okay, great. It varies per individual. Well,

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: we'll have them on that

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: too. Yeah. We we could we could definitely, like, ask a few folks what they what they tend to do. So And if we could have somebody on Zoom, that would be really good. It gets a little tricky with people who are currently frustrated because of victim impact, but maybe we could contemplate someone who's been recently released. Okay, that would be good. That might be under supervision and might be interested in speaking with the committee. Okay. That's possible.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: That would be really great for lots of reasons. Okay, cool. Alright. So, Oh, yes, of course.

[Russ Ingalls]: We looked into what other states are doing on both of these? Yeah. We're asking for a study, but I'm sure that some other state has already done this or looked at it and already knows the answer. So, just curious, we've reached out to other states to see what they're doing.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah, that's a good question. We did a kind of impact analysis of the cost of absorbing telecommunications internally, and I think it was 2023 or 2024. So it was under a different vendor and we also had different call costs. So somewhat outdated at this point, but as part of that analysis, we did do a survey to other states to see which other states had made telecommunications free, whether

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: was a mandate from the legislature or an initiative of their own, and the impact that they had seen both financially and throughout the facilities. There are already a few neighboring states who have made calls free. Massachusetts is one of them. There was no cap that they set and so I know that within the first year of making the calls free, the amount of calls and the cost doubled. So that was a significant financial impact for them. And I know that New York, their state department of corrections has also recently made calls for you, but I think this was within the last three or so months. So, the impact is probably not known at this point.

[Russ Ingalls]: I'm sorry, go ahead. I just follow-up on that. I mean, I think the cost part is something you can make some reasonable estimates on. It's the non tangible items that are implied by this, that it's going to improve outcomes, behavior, and so forth, that I would think you could get a better feel for by seeing where it's actually been done and have we actually seen benefits.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: For sure. Yeah, I appreciate you saying that. And when we did the survey a few years ago, we did ask that question. It's been a while since I've looked at those results, some of the impacts were less violence in the institutions. I think in part because people have greater connection with loved ones and also because they might have less idle time because they're spending more time on the phones and connecting with folks. That was from a few years ago and I think we'd certainly do something similar to that for this study to ascertain what's changed in those years and how we could try to fit that into Vermont somehow, even though it would really be an estimate. Okay. I don't know if, to answer the latter half of your question, I don't know if there are any states that are paying incarcerated people minimum

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: wage.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: I don't think so. I know there are some states that have WiFi in their correctional facilities, and there are some individuals who actually have remote jobs that they're able to work in their living units because they have access. Some of those jobs, because they might be in the private sector, actually pay very highly. Maine is actually a place that does this, and I'm sure they'd be happy to come in here and share about their program, but it is a very interesting model, and I think for some of the individuals who have very high salaries, actually pay some of their salary as like a rent for the Department of Corrections there. That's interesting. Did they, yeah, did they, I've

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: heard about that. Yeah. Because it's, you know, about people having jobs while they're in prison. Yeah. Which can be very good for them. Did the committee, did the house committee talk about that?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Not in-depth, don't think so.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Because that might be something that we want to.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah, and I know of the program, you know, because we have a close relationship with Maine and also from visiting there a few years ago and hearing about some of the men talk about the jobs that they have. There are other states that are doing it. I don't have it off the top of my head, but I don't believe there are any states that are paying people minimum wage through the department. Okay.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: I just think there's about 12,000,000 reasons why.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah, but there's a that's that's a really long I mean, we should have that conversation multiple times because that's a that's an issue.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: That I mean, that's the the stumbling block that I've seen, casts grasp, that as we are right now, I can't. Right. I can't.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't need to study. I

[Russ Ingalls]: even know why we're even doing this study. I hope no, and I'll be out. I

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. I I okay. I I should let you talk, and then

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: No. No. I'm just saying I I did the the the wage part of this bill, it is is a nonstarter for many. I mean,

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: just Just to understand it?

[Russ Ingalls]: Just We already know.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: We don't

[Russ Ingalls]: need to understand it. We already know what, Chair. We know what it's gonna cost at least $12,000,000. And so to go spend $50,000 to do studies that we already know the answers to is almost like asking a question on the Senate floor where you're illegal to ask it because you already know the answer.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: It depends. This says there could be stages to this too. It doesn't have to happen all at once, but I think documenting what we do is critical and documenting what the ideal would be is fine. Think there's words to that. But let me just ask in terms of proceeding with this study. So the Department of Corrections is tasked with the study. Does the department feel that that's not gonna be a burden to actually do the study or did you have, because I was thinking print might even be able to do this study. Yeah,

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: I mean, think that the study as it was drafted by the committee, like, contemplates multiple stakeholders being involved in multiple different ways that the department could engage in the study. We had voiced some very significant concerns about the original iteration of the mill, and so if the outcome is that instead we're going to study and better document it, that's something

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: that I'm sorry, just for clarification, when you say the original iteration of the bill, what was the original?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: The first draft of the

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: bill

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: was minus the study. So, it was like making telecommunications cost free and paying incarcerated people fairly.

[Russ Ingalls]: You went to the answer,

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but I Yeah. Got You know,

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: one time and I apologize.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They did say that. They did say that.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: That's alright. Yes. Oh, it's okay. No. And I can see compared to that, you'd be willing to do a lot of things. But

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: it I mean, you asked about the burden. Wouldn't cause significant undue burden on the department, but of course it would take staff time and we'd want to pull in people from different disciplines so that we're able to get accurate and informational responses to the committee for jurisdiction.

[Russ Ingalls]: Just following up on that, I mean, you've got to produce the first draft report in basically three months.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: And then you do the study, and then from that, glean the conclusion, which is supposed to glean, which is better outcomes. And I'm I'm I mean, because that's what this is asking, and I'm not sure if you can do that.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Okay.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Within within within this, particularly since you know, I mean, to Senator Benson's point to a certain extent, other states, I think they would have done this by now because they're further ahead than we are in some of the things that are being done. And I'm sure they will ask these questions as well.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, that's good to hear. I don't think we should be, I have expressed an opinion, but it's my opinion at this point. I think continuing to talk about this bill and keeping an open mind is important. I'd like to hear from the print folks. They might even be able to do the study. I mean, we realized the amount that the state would need to pay if we're going to pay wages. The state could also charge folks for things like they are doing now. So that wouldn't necessarily be the net number. There's plenty of ways to do things and to your point about determining the value of what we do. That's government. That's the hard part about government is that we have to, government does the things that the private sector doesn't have, doesn't do mostly because they are public good and it's hard to measure public good, but somewhere we know that there is a public good and there are ways to estimate it, but that's a long conversation. So to me it's our place to have these conversations and get as close as we can to understanding the benefits of what we do. I mean, the corrections system is supposed to keep the public safe and help people who can have good jobs and good lives. I mean, need workers, right? We need workforce. That if So that's a benefit, and it's hard to quantify all of that.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: That that's fair, madam chair, but I'm also gonna say it it is also government's responsibility to be fiscally responsible. Of course. And and I'm not sure if this bill is fiscally responsible. That that's the the thing. And and I I you know, because even though, you know, the Department of Corrections is going to do the study, as how he said, is going to take time from their workforce, and that costs money, and and those things cost money. And so we can, have other ways or look towards other states that, like I said before, that are further along than we are in, and and have them come in for as we are going to be doing, have them come in and ask them what their outcomes are. I think that is a better use of what the difference is than the study. That's, like I said, that's my opinion.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Alright, I understand. We'll take it up, we'll get testimony and then just remember that every inmate costs $100,000 a year.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Absolutely, absolutely, I fully, and we wanna make sure that we have, I think, really concrete programs to make sure that they're doing it like education programs that we're doing from college that I'm trying to institute our

[John Benson]: I don't know if you

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: saw that. I did. So

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: those are the things that I'm So

[Russ Ingalls]: I A very good point is is Half $1,000,000, is that the best way to spend half $1,000,000 for outcome of people incarcerated? I don't know the answer to that, but I hear that's part of the question you're raising. Sure. Okay.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Well, have a lot to talk about.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: And

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: so if you have other witnesses, us know. So what's on my list are the JFO, PRIN, if we could talk to somebody from Massachusetts or Maine, if you have contacts there that you could refer us to, that would be great.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Sure. And I would just note, we would likely consult the brain council during the study, but it's not a conversation that they haven't brought into yet. So I'm not sure. Oh.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Do they know this is happening?

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: I don't think so. Oh. Yeah. I mean, it's just being contemplated. So Okay. Yeah.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Well, I would like to talk to them. So do you wanna give them a heads up? Or

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Again, it's challenging to be a part of your person.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: No, no, no. I wanted the PRIN administrator. Abby.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Oh, yeah. If you're seeking input from UBM. Haven't spoken with Abby before.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. I'll just call it UBM, Bailey.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: There's, like, multiple stakeholders in PRIN, but I can give Abby a heads up. Yeah. If that'd be helpful. Yeah.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Sure.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Hot cream?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Russ Ingalls]: Just for my information, PRIN just a state organization or is it a national organization?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: It's a local organization. So That is, it's the Prison Research Institute.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Innovation Network. Okay, thank you. Yeah, it was a national project that started in, I think, 2020 from the Urban Institute, and there were several states that took on this innovation network project, but it was funded through a grant that has since ended, and Vermont has continued our partnership with the University of Vermont, kind of born out of it.

[Russ Ingalls]: So is there a national, Again, I'm just going to say, if we're trying to find out how this works, if there's some national organization or something that looks at this, they may already have all the answers to these questions.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: There might be some I think corrections institutions took testimony from I might be forgetting the name, it might be the Personal Policy Institute, but there are certainly organizations that do these types of research and might have some more insight on what it looks like on a national level.

[Russ Ingalls]: And I'm just not to reinvent the wheel.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: No, totally agree. Or waste our time. Right. Yeah.

[Russ Ingalls]: Or as Senator Major said, being smart about how we spend taxpayers money. Right.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And time is as important as money. So, alright, good. So,

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: I think

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: we are good on this unless anybody else.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Okay. Thank you for being here. Yeah, of course. I will also plan to send information on our call rates. And if there's any other information pertaining to the topics that the bill contemplates that would be helpful to have, just let me know. I'm happy to either come back or send it to Kent.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh, and and we do want you to come back. I was just gonna say, please, have some time on your calendar, not just for this, but, we're we're getting the capital bill and Yep. You know, we have two weeks to

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah. That's not a mean thing, but we cause I'm not the best person to speak on behalf of that, but we've been talking with BGS, and I think we'll I'll chat with Ken about scheduling some good money for capital. But Okay. Yeah. Alright. Thank you. Great. Thank you all.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Alright. Glad you're here.

[Haley Somers (Director of Communications, DOC)]: Yeah. Not yet. It's really seems to be like, oh, crap.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: You know?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Anybody have anything before we adjourn for the whole weekend?

[Russ Ingalls]: So you had mentioned yesterday, though, you were going to talk about schedule for reviewing the capital bill.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yes. It's are there any topics that, so so what I have, just playing is the first deadline that we have is really for the cash component for the appropriations committee. That's what they'll need from us first is the cash component. And so I was working with Scott Moore about simply this column, the cash in the second year that we would start on that and the yellows on that column. So that's in the prisons, door controls, DCF, the Newport, Wi Fi, women's, facility. It's also the Veterans Home and, Newport Fort Worth house Those four things. There's four items, and then just generally VGS, they're critical. So those, so VGS corrections, the veterans home, and, the Newport Courthouse isn't gonna be a huge conversation, but it's it's in that category.

[Joseph "Joe" Major]: Where where are you with that?

[Russ Ingalls]: I don't know if they officially announced, but it's a worst kept secret probably in state government. But I think they're probably gonna be, I think, There's a hole in town and I think that they're planning on buying part of that hole or some of that hole or all of that hole and constructing a courthouse, but I don't know that.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: That seems very practical to me. I hope it does to you. It doesn't shed your tongue.

[Russ Ingalls]: I think that, I will refrain.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. That's fine. From afar, it looks very practical. And that hole obviously needs to be used. So are there any other, mean obviously we're going to go through everything but I just wanted to prioritize the things that we needed to focus on first. And you don't have to tell me now, but if you do know now, let me know.

[Russ Ingalls]: Sounds like the sooner we get started it is the better.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh yeah, and we're going to be starting likely before we have possession of the bill, but that's fine. Honestly, we've already started. We've heard testimony from folks already. Okay, is everybody good? Alright, we are adjourned.