Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It is February 5 in senate judiciary, and we are taking up s one 93. We have Kristen McFlur here. We also have Senator Vyhovsky on the Zoom. Senator Baruth should be joining remotely any minute and Senator Mattos will also be here. But the floor is yours.

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Great. Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Kristen McLaurin, the Deputy Secretary at the Agency of Human Services. And I'm joined here today by Karen Barber, General Counsel at the Department of Mental Health, as well as our team members from the Department of Corrections. So I'll give a brief overview and then I'll hand it over to Karen Baruth to go more in-depth on these items. So we wanted to come here and mention that we support a forensic facility within the Department of Corrections paired with clear competency restoration process. We see this is filling a long standing gap in Vermont's system for individuals charged with the most serious violent crimes who cannot proceed to trial due to incompetency. We also want to mention that we don't see this replacing existing systems. We're not proposing changes to the existing processes for individuals who need hospital level mental health care or individuals who qualify for DAIL's Act two forty eight. So the agency supports this bill as we see it advancing two main goals. One around protecting public safety, and the second one upholding due process with appropriate clinical care. So on the public safety item, again, we see S 193 aligning to the administration's public safety omnibus. And we see it both reflecting a shared understanding that Vermont needs three key things. One, a secure forensic option separate from the civil mental health system. The second one is clear legal pathways for competency related cases. And the third, fewer individuals stuck cycling between the courts, the hospitals, and corrections. And we see this alignment really as a growing consensus across the state that we're moving in the right direction. And as you can see, we thought it was really important both to say and demonstrate here today the collaboration across the departments within the agency of human services joined by mental health, again, of Corrections. And I think this is a really important demonstration of how we do our work. It truly is a collaborative approach. And we see this approach really supporting this bill again in three ways. One, integrated clinical and custodial oversight, clear accountability, and better coordination across public safety, health, and the courts. And the way we anticipate moving forward is the agency with support moving forward in a way that leverages this integration versus a siloed approach and responsibility. We do want to mention some recommendations or refinements on the bill. Again, supportive of the direction, we have four recommendations, refinements that you'll hear more about from the departments. One is on operational feasibility. The second is around clinical oversight. Third, legal clarity and timelines. And the fourth is related to changes to current practices regarding competency evaluation, strengthening pathways to an accountability for treatment for defendants that need that clinical treatment. And again, you'll hear more about that from Karen and Department of Corrections is here to answer any DOC related items. So in closing, again, the agency strongly supports filling this critical gap that we see Vermont needs in our public safety and mental health system. And we look forward to continued partnership with the legislature on that

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: to really build a system that ensures safe, humane and effective care

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: for individuals and victims. Thank you. Thank you.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any questions from the committee for parliament and senator North? Just one. I didn't write as fast as you were speaking. There was four areas that you identified I have. Mhmm. Operational feasibility, clarity timeline, compensates competency evaluations. What was the fourth? Clinical oversight. Did you

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: finish that one?

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Very good. Yes. We caught the other three.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And we'll be getting language for those fourth recommendations? Correct. Mhmm. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Senator Vyhovsky has a question.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you. So presently in the Department of Corrections, medical care is provided by a contracted private entity as opposed by the state mental Department of Mental Health. How would you propose that if this were located in corrections, clinical services would be provided? Would it be through the private contracted entity? Or would it be through a state agency?

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Yes, thank you for the question. And I'll let DOC get more into that. But I anticipate, say, continued through WellPath is that WellPath is currently providing those secure forensic clinical services in Massachusetts, but I'll let the Department of Corrections provide more insight in that space. Thank you.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Thank you. Next up we can have Karen.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Good morning. For the record, Karen Barber, general counsel for the Department of Mental Health. I did just wanna start by apologizing for the confusion last week with my sickness and appreciate your flexibility in rescheduling me to this week. I am joined by DOC. I'll be the main presenter, but they're here to answer any specific questions that you have for them. So I had planned to do a couple of different things in my testimony today. I wanted to try to provide just a broad level overview of the problems we're trying to solve and where we think the gaps are in the system. I wanted to briefly just review the DMH system. I wanted to talk about what we're not proposing. I wanted to talk about what we are proposing and how we think victim voice can fit into that. And then I wanted to highlight some issues around competency restoration. So I'll be talking about a lot of things that are not in the bill in front of you. And that's because, as the Deputy Secretary mentioned, we have a lot of proposed additions to make it stronger. And I'll be providing language after this, but we thought, one, I was sick last week and so it was really difficult, but two, we thought it might be better to socialize the issue first and answer any of your questions before we get into the nitty gritty. I'm really here to try to provide a high level overview. Does that sound like an okay plan? That sounds perfect. So Vermont has a civil mental health system and a criminal justice system. And those are two entirely different systems and they have different goals and requirements. They overlap just like the criminal justice system overlaps with Dale, the Department of Health with their STD programs and with corrections, but they weren't designed to go together in one seamless system. DMH is a mental health provider. Our job is to provide for the mental health of Vermonters. We oversee those receiving mental health services and we seek to make sure that they're receiving the right services in the right locations in the least restrictive settings. And while people hear a lot about our hospital system, it's really just a small part of what we do. We see our system as a pyramid and at the base where we spend most of our money and resources is in the community. Well, do have a hospital in Vermont, which is the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital, that is not like most other states with their state hospitals. Most states have hospital that's general fund where various groups of individuals go. In Vermont, we have a decentralized system. So the legislature decided when Tropical Storm Irene destroyed the old state hospital to create a decentralized system. So we don't have any one facility. We have six hospitals across the state where folks who are involuntary or voluntary can go. That includes the Bradborough Retreat, Rutland Regional Medical Center, UVM, the Windham Center, and the VA. So those are our hospital systems. We don't have any general fund hospitals in Vermont, so all of our hospitals are CMS certified and Joint Commission accredited. Why is that important? Because what it means that on top of the legal standards set out in statute, there are high clinical thresholds to be admitted to our facilities. And no one other than an admitting physician can admit someone to a hospital. So a court can't order hospital to accept someone, nor can the Commissioner of Mental Health require that a hospital take someone, including our own hospital, the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital. Again, those are solely clinical decisions. Same as discharge, only an admitting physician can determine when someone is ready for discharge. And the regulations require that as soon as someone is ready for discharge, they must be discharged. Vermont has an acute care hospital system, so it's no different than any other medical issue you go to the hospital for. You go in, your symptoms are stabilized, and you are discharged to a lower level of care. Our hospitals are not long term placements. This is different than the Vermont State Hospital and we often get questions about why can't you just keep someone or put someone in there because you used to be able to do that

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: at

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: BSH. At the end of its life, it had lost its CMS certification and Joint Commission accredited. We don't want to go back to that. We want to provide high quality person centered healthcare in Vermont. Our system also has a series of residential programs. All but one of those are unlocked. We do have several staff secure community residences, meaning they're staffed twenty four seven, but no one would be prevented from leaving if they wanted to do so. Vermont does have one physically secure residential, and that's the River Valley Therapeutic Residence, which is run by DMH. That's not a hospital level care. It's a residential licensed by Dale as a therapeutic community residence. It is also a Medicaid funded facility. So you must meet high clinical thresholds to go there. DMH has to ask the court to send someone there and then the court has to find that we've proven that there's no least restrictive setting for someone to receive services at. I bring this up because there was some confusion about River Valley and it potentially being a forensic facility. A few years ago, last time the legislature got close to potentially passing a forensic facility when it became clear that there wasn't enough support for it, DMH did ask separately to make some changes to River Valley to improve our system of care. And we do have folks that you would maybe consider forensic in River Valley, meaning they have connection with the justice system just like anywhere else throughout our system. But the changes we made were not to make it a forensic facility, but instead to allow us to better care for individuals there. So we now are able to provide involuntary medications if someone needs it, as well as do seclusion or restraint. And why is that important? Because we have some folks that may need medications or may need an episodic seclusion or restraint, but they really can maintain in a residential facility and the goal is to keep them in that residential facility so they can continue to move down to the next level, where in the past we would have had to move them hospital to get that care. So it allows them to maintain at lower levels of care. Vermont doesn't have any sort of forensic system of care and that looks different in other states. But generally when states are talking about a forensic system, they're talking about a location and a program where folks who have been found incompetent or insane are placed. Generally, most states have some form of competency restoration, as well as discharge criteria tied to public safety. So, as I mentioned, in Vermont, we do have folks that would be considered forensic, right? We do have folks that have been found incompetent or have been insane, been found insane, and they are treated at various places throughout our system. So certainly there are some in our hospital system. There are some in Act two forty eight. There are some being treated outpatient by Dale. There are some interacting with the SUD system. What we don't have is kind of a comprehensive system to deal with those folks or to provide any sort of competency restoration or secure placement if it's indicated. When we are talking about a forensic system, and I'm about to kind of get into the details about what we're proposing, I do want to be clear what we're not proposing. I think the deputy secretary touched on this. We are not seeking to create a forensic hospital. In a lot of other states, when they say forensic facility, it is a place where folks who, whether they need hospital level care or non hospital level care, they're all kind of grouped together. The idea is not to do that. In Vermont, those individuals are already being served in our hospital system and that's where they should go. If someone needs hospital level care for their mental health needs, we want them to continue to receive that care in our hospital system. So that is not what we are proposing. We are also not proposing to talk about the folks already under Dale's Act two forty eight program because there is already a program in place that handles folks that meet that clinical criteria with public safety as part of those considerations. We're really talking about a group outside of that. That's important because I think in the past few years when we brought up forensics and we've had some concerns, those are kind of two populations that people have been really concerned about. And so we want to make clear that we are not attempting to change those systems or touch how they are done. We're really talking about the folks that don't fit into those systems. We're really talking about where the gaps are. So before I kind of dive in a little bit deeper, wanted to kind of just review two things. Confidence and sanity are legal terms. They're not clinical terms. And people are not confident or insane for lots of reasons other than mental illness. It could be substance use, it could be TBI, dementia, intellectual developments of disabilities. And we do everyone, the defendants, victims, the public a disservice if we try to make it all about mental health because we're really missing a large part of the issue. If we only focus on mental health, you're not going to solve the problems, which is why we're trying to address the gaps more holistically. It's also important to remember that people can and are dangerous for lots of reasons other than mental illness. Someone can be treated and discharged from a hospital for their mental health needs and still be dangerous for other reasons. Someone could never meet hospital level of care and still be dangerous. Someone could have an SUD disorder or TBI or dementia and be dangerous. And so if we only connect dangerousness to mental illness, again, we're missing parts of the problem. So we are really focused on putting forth ideas that actually address the concerns we're seeing. And so we're proposing kind of beyond what the bill is in front of you, instead of package of ideas, recognizing that addressing complex problems requires a comprehensive approach rather than focusing on a single component. So it can't just be that we build a forensic facility, we need to look at the system as a whole if we're really wanting to address the issues. And we also see this as an opportunity to really think about where we can add victims' voice. I think we've heard a lot about victims feeling like they don't have a voice. Part of that is trying to do that in a mental health care system with a health care entity isn't really the correct avenue. So we've tried to think about ways to put victims' voice into our proposals. So our proposal is looking at really three main groups of people that we often hear about that I think are falling into the gaps. The first are individuals committing misdemeanors, who are getting stuck in the cycle of competency evaluations, additional charges, and in lack of engagement and treatment. That's by far the biggest group of folks that we see. Then there are a small number of individuals who have committed who have been accused of committing serious felonies who have been found incompetent. And in those cases, there's no competency restoration program and there's no secure option for them. Again, the folks we're talking about in that group are those that wouldn't meet criteria to be under an order of hospitalization for DMH or under an Act two forty eight order. And the third group is probably the smallest group, which is individuals that have been found insane after being accused of committing serious felonies who also don't meet criteria to be in the hospital or under an Act two forty eight order. So for the misdemeanor folks, Vermont is an outlier in the number of competency evaluations we order. We order hundreds of competency evaluations on low level misdemeanors each year. And best practice suggests from some national groups, including the Council of State Governments and the National Judicial Task Force, that you actually should be limiting competency uses in misdemeanor cases. So what we're proposing is that courts cannot order a competency evaluation in a misdemeanor case unless someone is unable to successfully complete the version. We think this has a lot of benefits. One, there's mistaken belief that if someone gets referred for a competency evaluation, they'll get treatment. The competency is a legal term, not a clinical term. And unless they meet criteria for inpatient hospitalization, they'll receive their competency evaluation on an outpatient basis, which is most misdemeanors. The evaluations are looking solely at competency. They're not clinical assessments and they're not including referrals to treatment. And even if someone were to ultimately be put under an order of non hospitalization, they have to want to engage in treatments. Mental health treatment orders are not punishment. And I want to repeat that because I think it's really important. Mental health treatment should never be seen as punishment. The goal of an ONH is to get someone to engage in treatment, not to punish them for a crime that they may have committed. ONHs are not like probation or parole. We only revoke when there's clinical grounds to do so because remember, someone can't go to the hospital unless they meet the clinical criteria to go to the hospital. The goal of an ONH is also not strict compliance. The goal is that someone's engaging in a way that allows them to maintain safety in the community. That may mean they don't take their medications exactly as they're prescribed or they don't attend every therapy session. We're not looking to see if they're strictly confined, we're looking to see how they're doing clinically. We also see in criminal courts the desire to impose conditions on someone that are completely unrelated to their mental health needs and not enforceable or tractable by the DA. We see these things like stay so many feet away from someone. Don't use drugs or alcohol, don't have a firearm, don't commit new crimes. None of those things are things that we can enforce through our own own age. So the biggest thing we hear, the biggest frustration is that there's no accountability in these cases. So we're proposing a solution that's focused on treatment and accountability. By By sending folks to Divergent, we're connecting them to treatment, whatever that might be. Because remember, it's not just mental health. It could be substance use, it could be getting services for their TBI or their intellectual developmental disabilities, and it allows them to find a pathway to resolve their charges. We see many people cycling through the system for much longer than if they had just resolved their charges. So it's a good thing for the defendant to be diverted. It's also a good thing for the state because it provides them a mechanism to hold someone accountable. It allows them to put those public safety conditions on someone and have a mechanism to do something about it if they violate those. We also have seen great success in certain counties that have linked conditions of release and having part of that, that they have to comply with their order of non hospitalization and sign releases to share information. So there are already things going on around the state that show that this type of system could be beneficial. And for victims and their families, we see this as a public process that they can participate on with again a focus on public safety. I'm less familiar because it's that set of DMH, the role of victims in diversion, but I think this is an opportunity where maybe language could be added to beat that up. So that is our proposal in terms of folks who are charged with misdemeanors and cycling through the system. I also had a question that you Yeah.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I I may have heard you wrong in reference to part of the process that you're looking at is no court ordered to accomplish the evaluations on misdemeanors unless they fail to complete diversion. Yes. So if they complete diversion, then does that necessarily mean that they're confident to stay in trial at this point

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: in time?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Well, if they resolve their charges

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: that way. The charges.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yep. So it takes them out of the system. Either their charges are dismissed or they come to some sort of resolution.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just seem to be putting the card before the courtship, but that's fine if it works. And my second one real quick is you you said there's six hospitals throughout the state. How many beds does that consist of, and are they presently full?

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: We can

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: get back to

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: you with

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: a Yeah.

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Occurred off.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: You don't know that, so I have a apology.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And senator Baruth, can you hear me?

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. Absolutely. So one of the sort of key components of diversion is that it's voluntary. Voluntary. So how would this change in saying that they can't have a competency hearing if they don't complete diversion? How would that interplay with the voluntary nature of diversion?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: I think, again, if they can't successfully complete diversion, then they could always get a competency evaluation. I think that there are a lot of benefits for defendants to actually divert, and they do this in many other states. One of the states we've looked at most closely in terms of this is in Florida, there's something called the Miami model where they very successfully created a program focused on diversion that has had really great outcomes in terms of connecting folks with treatment, improving public safety and recidivism.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. And I'm a huge proponent of diversion. I'm just trying how the interplay of the voluntariness I'm works if there's now statute saying that people have to complete diversion.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: I think it's as they have to attempt diversion. That was our proposal. But we can certainly continue to think about that. I think the goal is to try to divert people out of a system that's not working for them and not actually connecting them to treatment or resolving anything.

[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. And I support those goals wholeheartedly. I know diversion is incredibly successful. Just try and maybe it's just figuring out the language there is someone saying, no, I don't want to do diversion enough to say that they can't complete diversion.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And this misdemeanor language regarding diversions, that's not in here at the moment.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: No. That is one of those areas that is not in there. And I can send we can send language after this. We wanted to kinda just go through it and make sure before we just sent a bunch of things that everyone understood what

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: we were proposing. It makes sense now. So

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: now on to the second two groups, which are those charged with serious felonies. So when we thought about it, if we're really just talking about it, and this is language, so now we're getting into language that is in the bill, although we have some fairly substantial changes we would make, but some of the bones of it are the same, which is that it's really only applying to folks that are accused of crimes that are punishable by a life sentence. So that's already a pretty small group of individuals in the state. And then we're also talking about folks that wouldn't be under an order of hospitalization or an Act two forty eight order. So when DMH and DOC kind of looked at this, we're thinking that we're really only talking about three to five individuals a year. So we're not talking about a large population. So those that have been found incompetent. The goal again is to address both accountability and treatment needs. So Vermont is an outlier in that we don't have any sort of competency restoration program. So what that means in practice is that if someone's been found incompetent, there's not many options available and pretty much everyone is frustrated the system. The defendants usually don't get treatment. And even if they do, the charge is often still pending and just out there without great resolution. The state's attorney either has to dismiss the charges or leave it out there without really any ability to impose conditions of release or otherwise put guardrails around the defendant. And the victims and their families are stuck in a system of not seeing much happen or seeing the charges dismissed and not really having much of a voice than anything. So again, for misdemeanor cases, our idea was that we work on diversion, but for those facing the most serious felonies, there is an argument that there's a compelling state interest in attempting to restore competency in those cases. I wanna again stress this is just a mental health issue and that we can't just try to make it about mental health because that's not gonna address the issue because again, people are found incompetent for lots of different reasons. I also just want to say here as we're kind of talking about this that people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of crimes than perpetrators. And just because you have a mental illness doesn't necessarily mean you can't or shouldn't be held responsible for your actions. So the idea of limiting competency restoration to the most serious cases is in line with the best practice recommendations I mentioned earlier by the Council of State Governments and the National Center for State Courts. And our proposal would really think about how to best provide that. So it would link education because competency is really, do you understand the charges against you? Can you work with your attorney? Those sorts of things, coupled with treatment, whatever that treatment is, whether it's substance use treatment, whether it's help with your mental health needs, whatever you need. But doing those two things together, some states just kind of provide education, which we think it's really important to not just focus on just making sure they understand the court system, but also they're getting what they need so that if they do become confident and stand trial that they can meaningfully participate. We would recommend that people are reassessed for competency within this program every six months. We also would recommend, and I think there is already language in there that individuals be able to remain in the forensic facility once their competency has been restored until they go to trial. Because we do see sometimes in our current system, even though we don't have a competency restoration system, there are some folks that just by way of getting treatment in our hospital systems are restored, but we can't keep them, that's not a reason to keep them in the hospital if they don't need it, they go to corrections and then decompensate. So we're really looking for a system that is able to convert to provide continuous treatment.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So this would be somebody who's being held or held without bail, either 7,553 or 7,553 a, keeping them instead of sending them from the forensic facility to the general population, keeping them in the forensic facility, even though competency has been restored?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Potentially, I think we haven't exactly determined what that would look like. But I think the idea is that they would stay within some sort of system where they would continue to get whatever treatment and education they needed.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So with that, so if, actually, I'll my question for later. Okay. For

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: some, medication is a part of competency restoration. And for that, we would recommend, this is different than what's in there, the CELL standard. So there's a US Supreme Court case, the CELL case, which sets out criteria when involuntary medicine can be used for competency restoration, and we would recommend the state adopt that approach. And we do need to recognize that not at

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm sorry, see a Senator

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Baruth. Oh, it's a little bit back, but I'm a little confused why we would set up a facility within our correction system for people when we're currently acknowledging that they tend to decompensate within the corrections facility? So I'm a little confused.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: So I think the goal, We sometimes see it. I think the goal is that if individuals don't meet hospital level of care, they can't stay in the hospital, right? So currently those folks are either going back to corrections or going into the community. And that's a gap sometimes because when we are discharging someone from our hospital facilities, we're doing that because there's clinical criteria that says we must do that. What isn't taken into account is the public safety needs. And so we're seeking to find a secure location where someone can go if there continue to be public safety concerns, even if their mental health is treated or it's substance use that's causing it, whatever. And so we're looking at finding a place where they can maintain safely and get the additional supports they need, understanding that we're talking about individuals that do not meet hospitalization criteria. So these are folks that can't stay in the hospital. And what we don't want is for them to decompensate, so we want them to have a system where they're getting whatever it is that they need. If they need to go to the hospital at some point in the future, then of course we would send them back to the hospital. But the idea is that we would continue to link them with the treatment that they needed, whatever that looks like, so that they could maintain.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay, I guess I'm a little concerned if part of a clinical discharge evaluation doesn't include, is this person a danger to themselves or others?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: It does due to mental illness. And that's why I spent some time talking about how people can and do remain dangerous for reasons other than mental illness. Everyone that's released from our hospital system has been determined not to be a danger to self or others due to their mental illness. That does not mean that there are not other reasons why they are dangerous. And that is the nuance and that's the gap.

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Thank you. Mhmm.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Does that make sense?

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: It does. And I

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: think that kind of also gets to my question of the the hold without bail status because it's because it sounds like this this difference or this distinction, would it be that basically all of these folks charged with the serious felonies are being held without bail anyways?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yes. And I think what I you would hear from corrections is a lot of these folks are already in the system, but we're working, what we want to do is provide something that's actually potentially restoring them to competency and giving them some more focused attention in terms of their needs. But these are folks that are already in our system, either in our facilities or but if someone's been found insane or someone's been found incompetent and can't stay in corrections, then they could potentially be out in the community. And that is a gap.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, well, makes sense. So

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: for those folks that aren't restorable, we would propose a process for considering discharge that's the same as folks that would be in the third bucket, which is those who have been found insane. So I'll kind of treat that all together if that's okay. So in Vermont, we actually have very few cases of insanity. We see it pretty rarely. I think part of that is because we don't have a competency restoration program, so often folks aren't getting to that part. But we do have some, And we would anticipate that if we had a competency restoration program, we may see more folks that have been found on field severity of insanity. And just to review sanity and like competency is a point in time assessment. So you're really looking at the time of the events, did the person understand the criminality of their actions? And that doesn't change. So competency is fluid, it can change. Sanity never changes. So either you were saying that you weren't. So for this population, the proposal is that these folks would automatically be presumed to go to the forensic facility after the finding of insanity unless they could show by clear and convincing evidence that their release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another or serious damage of property to another. It's kind of similar to what is in this bill, except it takes up the mental health piece and really focuses on public safety. Because again, this isn't just a mental health problem. By trying to do it that way, you're not actually addressing most of the cases that people are concerned about. Quick clarification. So

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: isn't it supposed to be that so let's say there's a finding of insanity, wouldn't it be on the state to prove that they are a serious threat to others rather than the defendant proving that they are not a threat?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: So I think that is the way the bill is written. I think that's we're less concerned about how you do that, but in terms of just the concept. So I think we're really the goal is to make sure that if someone is a danger, a public safety danger, that there's a secure facility for them to be at whatever language makes the most sense, I think is less of our problem.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that's likely where the burden would have to shift is proving the burden. I'll dive into that later.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah, that makes sense. This is not my error. We're also proposing that those patients should be reassessed by the court every year. So however they get in, whoever's burden it is, I think right now it says five years, we would recommend a yearly reassessment. We're also proposing that discharge decisions be based on those public safety standards and use forensic risk assessments to make those determinations. So there are tools out there that can be used to determine someone's level of risk. They're called forensic risk assessments. Sometimes we do see designated agencies using them when they're placing folks in the community. So we would recommend kind of using real clinical tools to make those decisions. Again, those aren't necessarily mental health assessments, those are whatever, It could be your substance use. If you use again, you could be dangerous, it could be your TBI, but it looks at the person, not the diagnosis and really thinks about what it is they need and what risk they could be. So it makes sense to make those what determining is determining whether someone gets out. We're also proposing, and again, I think this is in there, is that if someone doesn't meet the public safety standards thresholds at the point where they're ready to be discharged, that they be on community orders that contain conditions related to public safety and treatment if indicated. And that would allow those individuals to be returned to a forensic facility if they did violate those orders. We also see a real role for victims at this point in the process. I think one of the things we're hearing is that they feel like they don't have a role on the DMH side of that. That is true because those are civil commitment cases that are solely concerned with the mental health needs of the individual. And so that's really all we're looking at. And I think if we were talking about release from a forensic facility and what sort of public safety guardrails needed to be put in place and whether or not someone did remain in danger, that's where victims really could have a role in explaining to the court their experiences and their thoughts. There is a current house bill, six something. I forget what number it is, but we think that a lot of that language could be maybe be merged with this bill and address some of the victims concerns along with a potential forensic system. So those are kind of those three big populations. We are also proposing some other language that's not in here that's related to competency evaluation. So I was gonna move into that next unless you had questions.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't have questions. Well, I'm curious, are you gonna be touching on section three regarding people who are acquitted offenses?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: That was my reason of insanity. Right?

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't think it mentions insanity. I think it

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: I I

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: don't think it mentions anything of regarding insanity. I think it's just people were acquitted of an offense punishable by a life sentence. I did have some questions there, but I don't know if that's something you're gonna be you or somebody else might be touching on later.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: I think oh, okay. I apologize. So I think in that case, what we were proposing was that again, it would only apply for those folks that would not be subject to an order of hospitalization or an Act two forty eight order, and that it would again be similar and that I think the way we have it written is that it would be presumed they would go in there. Think to your point, it might slip the burden. But again, that would be about public safety and dangerousness. And that release from the facility would be governed by risk assessments and those types of things. It would mirror the same processes as someone who had been found in SANE or hadn't been able to be restored to competency. So the same criteria and the same schedule in terms of how often it would be reassessed by the court.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: recognize that one's a little trickier in terms of constitutional issues. Our focus mostly is on those that are touching kind of the AHS systems in terms of incompetency or insanity. That may be a piece that the state's attorneys are gonna look to discuss how they see that working. Yeah. That sounds good.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I I had some questions and, I guess, concerns regarding, you know, somebody who's acquitted and, you know, what yeah. Somebody who's acquitted and, you know, how are you making the finding of whether or not they're still a threat to public safety if they've been acquitted, and where that burden lies and so on. Yeah. Those were just some thoughts that I have for that, but I think I can see likely that's the state's attorney's area. They can talk a little bit more, but we're gonna be having them coming next week on

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: this. Great.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I see Senator Vyhovsky has a question.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. It's okay. It's tough to be out here in the virtual world. I am curious, I haven't seen the house bill you're referring to, so I admit that I don't know what's in it. But what I'm curious is how that weaves together with HIPAA. Because just because someone maybe has done something or caused harm does not mean they lose their right to protected medical information.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: You're absolutely correct, which is why we cannot support the bill as written, because it does attempt attempt to allow victims to Right now, all of those proceedings are closed, they're confidential, and all of that information is protected health information. I understand that that's frustrating for victims because they want information. And there are state and federal laws that protect that information. So the bill is attempting to impose some additional requirements on the department in terms of sharing that information. We have satisfied it as judiciary that we can't support that and we don't think that's legal. And we think that putting some of those protections into a bill like this, where you're in more of of a forensic type, public process connected to the criminal justice system is where a victim's voice really makes sense.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you for for helping to to navigate that for me, because I I do understand in many places within our criminal legal system and our whole system that victim voice gets lost, and that is important. And we do have state and federal laws that protect health information.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Absolutely. Yeah. So we're trying to find the middle ground there. Great.

[Kristen McLaurin (Deputy Secretary, Agency of Human Services)]: Thank you.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah. So in terms of competency evaluations, we're suggesting again, it's not in there, but we'll add language to it, that a couple changes are made. DMH by statute is responsible for doing mutual evaluations and competency cases. We're not a party to criminal cases. We don't have any involvement in the criminal cases. But it can also often put DMH in a difficult spot because we're not a party and we don't have an interest, but sometimes we're treating those folks. In addition, we've heard a lot of complaints from the state's attorneys and the Defender General about when they attempt to use our evaluators, if they need them to testify in a hearing or they need them to do a reevaluation, that they're charged significantly higher prices than we have negotiated. So our contract is a fairly large contract because the amount of valuations we do, but it only is for those neutral valuations. So they have to create one off contracts to get their needs met. And so the idea has been put forward and one that we agree with that it makes sense actually for the state as a whole to hold a contract that everyone can pull from, So everyone's not negotiating their own. And so our proposals that BGS be tasked with that and hold a statewide contract that everyone can use.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Can I ask a clarifying question? These are evals done by independent contractors?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yep. And

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: they're charging different prices to different agencies?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yep. Yeah. Okay. Yep.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And the solution is having EGS hold one contract and those contractors go through them

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yep.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: To do the eval at the same price essentially?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah. They negotiate rates for all of their things all at once, and there's more negotiating power because it's a much bigger contract. And

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: senator Bobosky has a question? Yeah.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm just curious why it would be BGS. That seems like a strange entity to be negotiating mental health incorrectly. I'm just curious why BGS.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: So I think it's the general services part of it. They hold a lot of actual state contracts that lots of different agencies and departments use. They're just kind of essential. So I think they hold, like, the interpreter service. That way, everyone can use it. So they are just kind of an agency that has expertise in holding bigger contract or department.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. It just initially, I was like, wait a Why wouldn't it be DMH or AHS?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: But if

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: doing most of the contracting, then that does make more sense. And I definitely would support having a negotiated contract rate. I think we see this in many places where different charges are happening in different places when the state could negotiate for a standard rate.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Do you know oh, sorry. Senator, hear you. Yeah. Do you know why they're charging different prices for whether it's the defender or the state's attorney? Why they're

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: I think because they can. Yeah. The second change we're proposing related to competency evaluations is the timelines for inpatient evaluations. Again, isn't in there, so currently, right now, if someone is ordered to have an inpatient competency evaluation, so that means that they meet clinical criteria to be involuntarily hospitalized due to their acuity of their mental health issue, and they need a competency evaluation. By statute, that has to be done within thirty days. Clinically, that's not very realistic because someone's in the hospital because their mental health needs are acute, and it takes a little bit of time for them to settle in, for the treatment team to get to know them, and for treatment to be started. And so what we're seeing is we're getting these evaluations done really quickly and they're always not confident. But instead, if we waited a little bit to see if they actually were treated, even though it's not a competency restoration program, sometimes it really is just the treatment needs, and sometimes it's more than that. So we're proposing a change from thirty days to one hundred and twenty days to give an individual time to get treatment before they are evaluated. I do want to note that both of these changes have nothing to do with waitlists. I know that was a big issue a few years ago. We don't have any waitlists at the moment for either inpatient or outpatient competency evaluations. This isn't about personnel. We have plenty of contractors at this point to do these evaluations. It's simply wanting to make the evaluations more meaningful. These are expensive evaluations. They're around $4,000 in evaluation. These are folks that are hospitalized that often are getting multiple evaluations. And so we think it makes sense to kind of wait so we can do an evaluation when it's more clinically indicated.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Remind me, were these court ordered evaluations that we're talking about? Yep. And in those orders, the judge is saying it's eval done within thirty days.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: The statute says it has to be done within thirty days. And so then the last thing I just wanted to raise is an issue that has come up multiple times, school's complaints to DMH and that we've heard in other committees. It's not something DMH can fix, but because it's related evaluations, if you're considering changes to competency evaluations, I wanted to raise it. So we've had quite a few instances where people are refusing to engage in competency evaluations, some of these high profile cases. And there exists what we see as a conflict in statute around this that may be causing the issue. So a few years ago, when the last time the legislature made significant changes to the competency and sanity statutes, They added a section 13 BSA 4817A to make clear that a defendant shall be presumed confident and shall have the burden of proving a competency by a preponderance of the evidence.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: What was that statute again?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: 13 BSA 4817A. Arguably then a defendant refusing to participate in a competency evaluation would be presumed competent unless they can show otherwise. However, there's another section, subsection C of that same statute that says, In cases where the court has reason to believe that such a person may be incompetent to stand trial due to a mental disease or a defect, such hearing shall not be held until an examination has been made and a report submitted.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm sorry, what was the first part of that sentence, a sub C?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: If a court has reason to believe that a person may be incompetent.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So if the court makes the finding, but if the defender or the state's attorney makes the request and then an eval happens and they're found not confident. Wait. No. So

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: They don't line up.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Right. It wouldn't

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: They don't line up is the thing. And so I don't know how you mesh that out, but we're just raising it that we're seeing it. I mean, we're getting a lot of frustration by folks because, you know, we're attempting to do evaluations, people are refusing to engage, and then nothing's happening either because the court feels like it can't or you know, I think the statute is unclear as to as to what happens there. So, again, we're just raising that as an issue because it's coming to us just because we're doing some of these evaluations. And we do see it as a potential issue.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I just want to make sure I'm understanding it. So So there's if a presumption that somebody who refuses an evaluation is presumes competent, but if a court finds based on their observations that somebody isn't competent, then they remain not competent, even if they are refusing the evaluations.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: So the statute isn't clear. It just says the defendant is presumed confident and they have the burden. I think that could mean that if they're refusing to participate, you could presume them confident. I think that argument is there, but because the statute isn't clear and because there's two maybe contradictory sections, I think what you're seeing is a lot of people frustrated because nothing's really happening, right? They're refusing to engage in evaluations and the case is just pending. There doesn't seem to be any potential resolution to it. And so, again, we'll keep trying to do the evaluations. We're just raising it as an issue that we're seeing.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I've heard it as an issue as well and just trying to make sure I fully understand it before contemplating a solution to it.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yes, and this is not my area, so this is another place where I think the state's attorney is, you know, this is just we're seeing it as the people doing the evaluations, obviously not as the folks bringing the cases. So that was kind of my presentation. In conclusion, you know, AHS has worked closely with the governor's office to design a proposal that holistically seeks to address several issues that we've been seeing. We're really focused on both accountability and access to treatment, as well as having a forensic system that is designed based on best practices. And that keeps in mind Vermont's existing policies around how we treat folks with mental illness or substance use or intellectual developmental disabilities, really trying to trying to look at it all. We're not seeking to replace any existing programs, but instead design a system to fill the gaps in the system. Happy to answer. Any other questions?

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't have any questions. I don't see any others. So thank

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: you. Yeah.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Yes. And I'm joined by our general counsel, Lori Fisher.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's permissible. Absolutely.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: My name is John Murad. I am the interim commissioner for the Vermont Department of Corrections, and I'm very glad to be here today. We are supportive of the the Vermont Department of Corrections is is supportive of this measure and recognizes the need for additional tools when dealing with people who are in need of forensic assistance, custodial mental health care. The thing that drives us, I think, is over the past half decade, there have been nine very high profile instances of people being killed in these kinds of situations. And victims are really what drive what the Vermont DOC sees its function as, the the custody and care of people who harm victims, but it is the safety of those victims and or the the ability to make certain that new victims cannot be created that drives what we do. A 26 year old woman, randomly attacked and murdered in Bennington in 2021, a shelter worker attacked and murdered in Brattleboro in 2023, three members of a family shot and killed in Paulette in 2024, a father beaten to death in Eniesburg in 2024, two parents killed in their home right here in Montpelier in 2024, a young woman stabbed to death in Colchester in 2025. The people accused of all of those crimes are currently in our custody and are currently in a situation where they are therefore not capable of harming other people in the greater public. And we do provide additional assistance for individuals who display issues with mental health or who display issues around lack of control or behavioral issues for any people in our custody irrespective of whether or not they've committed crimes as terrible and tragic as these. But the ability to actually also assist with the restoration of competence and or additional mental health tools in a forensic capacity is something that the department would be very supportive of obtaining.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Any questions or comments? I don't know if you're done with the commission. I am done, sir. Okay. I just heard a rumor or or just to the grapevine, whatever, so they can squash this for me, that there may or may not be a particular wing in a in a Southern facility that may be available for a front the maybe is what I'm saying.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: The that's a complicated question. Of the individuals accused of the crimes that I just mentioned who are male, they are all at Southern State Correctional Facility right now, and they do all reside in a wing. But that wing is not nearly for people accused of crimes like this or displaying issues with competency or with mental health, but it is also used for people who have other kinds of mental health issues that may or may not be associated with their their their crimes, whether accused crimes in the case of people that we're detaining or whether sentenced crimes in the case of people who are are now in our custody because of the court having sentenced them to our custody. We don't have, in other words, a space that would be able to be broken away only for this purpose. And as I said, you know, in the past decade, we've had these terrible crimes. There are nine victims of those crimes. There are six people accused of those crimes. That is not necessarily we we don't have an entire wing to which we could dedicate for six people at this time. And so what we are seeking to do is have additional tools to work with people who are again, we already do this. The individuals accused of the crimes I mentioned are all in our custody. We are already maintaining custody of them. We are doing what we can through our healthcare provider WellPath to ensure that we are treating them as they need as we do with anybody who is in our custody, either detained or sentenced. But the idea of having a separate facility is not something that we could currently manage. We don't know that the volume is there for that at this moment. And I would hope that we'd never get to the point where the volume is there for that. But that is a question for us and an open question with regard to certainly custody that is not at the moment, everybody that I mentioned is somebody who was being held pending trial. None of these individuals have been convicted, which is why I'm I'm not necessarily naming them or or talking about what there is. They're each entitled to their presumption of innocence, but they are in the process of of court cases. Some of those processes have been delayed for long periods of time owing to competency issues. Others are more recent and we really have not seen the full picture play out yet. But the idea of having folks who have been through the process and have been acquitted would be a new territory for us. And so we would have to determine presumably with guidance from the law about where those folks would be.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So you're necessarily saying no then.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: I'm saying that there is we are currently based on our current capacity overall as a Department of Corrections, we are under built. We have more people than we can currently house. That is particularly true with our female incarcerated people and detainees, but it is true across the board. And so the more we specify and or specialize how we house people, the more complicated that capacity issue becomes.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, I

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: have a couple of questions, and one is sort of based on capacity. You know, my understanding is that the sort of frontline staff in the Department of Corrections is fairly understaffed and is being forced to do long hours. And so I'm wondering, with a more specialized system like this, how do we deal with the capacity issues that already exist?

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Thank you for that question. And thank you for acknowledging. Yes, we are we remain understaffed. As a department, we're about 12 to 13% understaffed right now based on allotments and historical norms. But that is more pronounced when we look at the ranks that do most of the frontline work of maintaining custody and care of people. Those ranks are probably closer to the 20% deficit range compared to normal. We've made great strides. This the the department was at one point as as low as 33% or more in deficit, and we have cut that more than in half. And so I think that certainly my predecessor, commissioner Demmel, and the team around the department is owed a lot of acknowledgment for that. They've done extraordinary work, and we're continuing to work on that. The stresses that you're describing, senator, are are already met by us. Again, the the six individuals who are currently accused of the nine murders that I mentioned are all in our custody and are being addressed by our frontline. And they are being addressed in compassionate, caring, lawful custodial ways.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay, I appreciate that. My other question is the same question that I had posed to the previous witness, and that is around the private contracted services and whether that would be the continuation. And the reason I ask is that I have heard concerns about the quality of the care from the private contracted services. And so I have concern that if we're going to expand that care, if it's already not the quality that we would expect, what what are we planning to do?

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Both both the governor and secretary Samuelson are very clear. Our goal is a community level of care, and I think that in many ways we do need it for some individuals, they are frankly getting better care in our custody than they would be getting if they were out and on their own devices. With regard to this kind of care, I think that one of the things these bills perhaps envision is additional resources for more specific and specialized kinds of care around forensics, including around competency restoration. I don't know that that's something that would be spelled out certainly in a granular detail in legislation. I don't know that that's the appropriate place for it. But the recognition that additional different kinds of specialised treatment is necessary for competency restoration would certainly be something that we would look at. With regard to care overall, and aside from the idea of restoring competency, I do believe that the people in our custody get excellent care. And I certainly would I mean, our general counsel, Lori Fisher has been dealing very closely with our contractor WellPath on a lot of these issues. So certainly, if there's anything else that you want to clarify or weigh in on,

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Lori, please do.

[Lori Fisher (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: No, I appreciate that commissioner. Again, Lori Fisher, General Counsel for the Department. I think that's a very valid question, Senator, and something that we explore on the daily, obviously. I think what I would say is that WellPAC has been very responsive to any requests that the state has made in relation to, like example, the SUD program, the accountability court, they were on board with us and clocked in with us to get the clinicians necessary to effectuate that. I would also say that the study that I'm doing and with the assistance of Attorney Barber and getting educated on systems around the country, WellPath currently operates in conjunction with the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, a facility in Massachusetts. And so they are already immersed in that model and have a lot of good ideas to offer in relation to this suggestion of a forensic creation here. So the good news is that they're kind of ahead of us in relation to what their staff and their entity has already put in place. And the hope is that we would be able to bring some of that knowledge in conjunction with our work with our partners at DMH to bring that level that is required for this specific population.

[Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Do you folks have any further testimony from here? No. What do say? Alright. Well, thank you. It was informative. So I know there were some proposed changes. Is there a way that we could get that language sent to ledge counsel in our committee today, perhaps?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah. And I know that there was some talk about whether it was Eric or Katie.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It might be a mix between the two just because I think

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: So both central.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That would that would be good. And I think that and so I know we're we're hearing from, hopefully, the SAs and the defenders next week, maybe the AG, to go over some of the other pieces. And we'll have your proposals, We'll try to see if potentially, like, council could come in tomorrow just to give us their walk through of those aspects and if you can turn that into a markup that's if they're available. Henry, do you reach out to them and see if they might have availability

[Henry (Committee Assistant)]: tomorrow at, say, ten? Yeah.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Know it'll be short notice that they may not be able to fully draft up the new bill with your proposed changes, but I think it'll be the start of the markup and discussion for that. And then we can go through your changes as well as make note of some of the concerns or the changes that we wanna make and then bring it back up again next week. Yeah. Committee, anything else? No? Okay. So thanks again for your testimony. I can't do it. So you can break until actually, let me ask. Senators on Zoom, can you be back at around ten oh, wait. Actually, Michael Chittenden says it's coming at 10:45.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: I am. Okay.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Would you be

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: able get would you be

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: able to be back at around, say, 10:35, and we can vote on SR 21? Yep. Get the Utah. Yeah. Cool.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Sounds good.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So we can go on break until 10:35. Thank you.

[John Murad (Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections)]: Good to see you. Good to see you. And

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: then we'll Henry? Take

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: care of it then.