Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are live. Alright. Good morning. We're back in senate judiciary on February 6. We're taking up s one ninety three. We have ledge counsel to talk about some thoughts they have on proposed edits. We're gonna go for probably thirty, maybe forty minutes, and then we'll have to pivot to 02:09 to wrap that up. And that's about what our timeline looks like for this morning, and then we have the floor at 11:30. So, Legis Council, the floor is yours.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you and good morning everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Weather State Council as Senator Hashim said here to talk with the committee about some proposals from the Department of Mental Health regarding Senate Bill number 193 and this is a forensic facility bill which I know the committee has talked about and gotten to walk through on so had some discussions about it with Katie and with witnesses previously. Katie will be probably joining us in a few minutes as well. She's in Senate Health and Water at the moment. But so the plan today was to, oh, perfect timing, I just mentioned joining us shortly. Okay, great. Yes. Yeah. Just realized as I was pulling this out that I hadn't made copies of the solar points.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I guess we can still kinda walk through them and and then make some copies after. I did have my screen. Emma made copies of the the the photos. So yeah. That could work too. Would you like me to do that? Sure.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So as we're waiting for that, I can throw out a couple of big picture things that you'll notice they're also right in the beginning of the of the DMH or AHS proposal. So everyone has this document, think, the one with the colored highlights on it from AHS, the one that says AHS proposed edits and additions, and that's the one that Katie and I took a look at and had some thoughts for the committee to think about. Think the idea is to the extent you may want to include some of the amendments that AHS proposed or look further into some of the other ones that we would walk through them to start with and give you some preliminary thoughts and then the committee can decide which ones it wants to go ahead with or make some changes to or whatever the committee's credits might be. So having said that, on page one, maybe the very so the highlights sort of show the proposed changes to the bill I've introduced. So let's see some of the colored highlights for example, page one. The first one that like the first yellow one, which will bring up the first point that we noted as well, is that the evaluations that have to take place when a defendant's competency has been raised in the criminal proceedings. So currently, it's the Department of Mental Health that's ordered to conduct these evaluations. And the proposal is to shift that over to the Department of Buildings and General Services. And you would see that on page three as well, the court may go to subsequent evaluations performed by BGS. So obviously, that's something that we flagged. We're not sure if the intent there, you may have already heard from image witnesses could have already talked about this, but the question is, you know, I'm gonna assume that it's something BGS would contract out for as opposed to, I don't think there's any psychiatrist or psychologist there who would be doing it, but I assume they contract for it. But that's just something that note from the committee that for BGS to be the department overseeing these mental health evaluations is something you probably wanna ask more about how that would supposedly work. Sir, around us. Again, why would BGS be the one? Question for the

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: department. I might wanna hear from BGS as to what their capacity is to do that type of work.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. There was,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think it was senator Vyhovsky who may have raised it last time. And oh, actually, she has her hand up, so maybe she's senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yes. I was the one that raised the same question when they went DMH was testifying and what they had said was that BGS, the general services aspect, tends to apply to a lot of contracts, but I definitely think we should hear from BGS because it certainly flags flagged for me the other day and to get, you know, still that that seems strange. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we'll note that one, good one to flag. On the same page, another one that that we flagged as well as far as having some questions about, you'll see, so the proposal is that the diversion program, which is run out of the Attorney General's Office, be involved in these competency proceedings in the sense that you look at in the least in my document, it's pink, but I see it might be blue in your subdivision five towards the middle. Court may order a competency evaluation and misdemeanor matter only upon finding the diversion has been attempted and been unsuccessful. The rest of the yellow language is just a sort of a definition of what they mean by unsuccessful. So if we skip down to the bottom of the page at number six, so that was misdemeanor. So for misdemeanors, there has to be a finding that diversion has been attempted and been unsuccessful before competency evaluation takes place. And then number six, for felony requires that parties must first consider a referral to the adult court diversion program before the court orders a competency evaluation. So that's another one that we flagged because these two things at first blush seem to be unrelated. Like why and how it depends mental health status for purposes of competency is relevant to whether or not they completed a diversion program wasn't immediately obvious to us. It also raises the question of, well, the person is only gonna come up, the evaluation is only gonna be is only gonna happen if somebody either the defense attorney or the prosecutor or the court raises the issue of the defendant's competency because it's when that happens that the court would order the evaluation, Right? So it raises the question of, well, defendant is raising their confidence. Somebody is raising their competency of the defendant to stand trial. How are they gonna participate in diversion anyway? Is if there's already a competency issue, it sort of begs the question of how is that is that person gonna even participate in the diversion program?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Eric, I agree with the point that you're raising. I think also the I mean, when you're going through diversion, I think it's correct to say as long as you successfully complete it, you don't have a liberty interest that's at stake. And so you don't necessarily need you don't need the same level of competency to go through diversion as you would to speak and work with your attorney going through a trial. Right. I don't I don't know if that's all that old that is correct, but it's just a thought that came into my head. No.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I see what you're saying. It's a good point.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I see Senator Vyhovsky has her hand up.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I had raised this yesterday in a slightly different way, that was, you know, diversion has to be voluntary. And if someone is incompetent, can they voluntarily engage with something? Like, do they if they're not competent, do they have the capacity to consent, I guess, is sort and I raised the voluntary aspect from a different standpoint the other day, but now as I think about it more, I'm also wondering if there's another layer to that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think that's a fair question too. And, you know, their competency hasn't been or or incompetency hasn't been established yet, but it's certainly been raised at that point. That's the whole reason that the diversion proceedings would kick in. So yeah, if they were, whether or not there's been a legal determination yet, but if that person was incompetent, that's a fair argument that maybe they would lack the capacity to to participate in diversion or agree to it or or make those kinds of decisions. It also occurred to me, I don't have the answer to this, but it was just a question that occurred to me that, you know, it is unconstitutional to try an incompetent defendant. So this seems to be saying that so can you can you prohibit a defendant from even raising a competency defense if they don't participate in diversion? I don't know the answer to that. That just sort of struck me as an interesting part of the proposal. Seems to be saying that, you know, the court can't make a the court can't order the common fee evaluation until there's been a fine and the version has been attempted and been unsuccessful. So it seems to kinda limit the defendant's ability to raise competency as a defense.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You're talking about section six?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And five. Yeah. Both of them. Actually, more so Well, I'd say five and six, but they're a little bit different because five is a is a strict prohibition on ordering the competency evaluation until there's a finding that diversion has been impacted. Whereas six, I mean, it's similar. Six does they most must first consider as opposed to it. You know, an actual finding of attempt, an unsuccessful attempt. But it would be interesting to hear it kinda kinda similar point to the BGS about here from then. It's the attorney general's office that oversees the diversion program. So, presumably, this would result in a lot more cases going to diversion. So it'll be interesting to hear the AG's take on that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I I guess one question is, I mean, if if a defendant is, for whatever reason, adamant that they wanna take their case to trial rather than going to diversion Mhmm. That is potentially where the problem lies. Right. Yeah. Right. It would be I suspect it would be incredibly rare, but it's still still situation that exists. Yeah. Right. For the it's it's still a possibility.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And, you know, you're right. It might be rare enough so that it wouldn't necessarily be something that would kind of rule out the proposal because you just sort of wait and see if it ever because it may never happen. So wait and see if it ever does come up maybe because it's sort of more of an asset buy kind of thing, you know, rather than necessarily a reason to not go ahead with that idea. So sure. An issue to add in the back of your mind. Yeah. So that kinda brings us to we're talking about the VGS. So I think now we're getting to the the actual procedure forty eight fifteen a, page three. Does that sound right?

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That sound good. So if you're looking at forty eight fifteen a, this is marking up sections of the bill as introduced. The concepts in the language that is being proposed by the department in AMD are mostly already captured in the A of the bill is introduced. So we're just flagging that. The significant difference is that this would include individuals who are being held under Act two forty eight, which is offenders with developmental disabilities. So it's the inclusion of that population, but otherwise the addition of A and B is already reflected in what is in the bills introduced under A, which is that a person would be in a forensic facility. If that person is charged with an offense punishable by a life sentence, the person is not deemed a person in need of treatment. Again, that is a defined term that's a standard in Title 18 for holding somebody for involuntary mental health treatment. And that the person has been found not confident to stand trial. So the addition here, I think, from the health department would, in addition to a person who is a person in need of treatment, the inclusion of offenders with a developmental disability. So individuals who have not been deemed offenders with developmental disability under Act of 48. Similarly, in the highlighted language on the next page, subsection C, that language is for the most part already in the bill, is introduced under subsection B. And that is the concept that once the person is admitted to the forensic facility, the person is to be evaluated for competency to stand trial not less often in the shorter of every six months, or upon a determination by the facility's clinical director that the person is likely confident to stand trial. So that concept is already captured there. In subsection e, this is language about the treatment plan for the individual. I don't wanna call it a treatment plan. While the person is receiving competency restoration services at the forensic facility, there's a plan by the facility's clinical director. And then there is language in the bill that this could include medication. And then the department is adding this language in b, pursuant to the administrative process meeting our requirements in CELBUS. We typically wouldn't refer to a case like that in statute. So the proposal or what I guess what we would flag is that it might be more appropriate to use the holding, the standard that that case stood for instead of having the case listed there. I think it probably would also be easier for practitioners in the field who are trying to understand when medication could be used if the standard was there instead of a citation to a case. So just food for thought as we go through this. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Katie, I'm sorry. Under c

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: We're I guess I'm a little confused here. This whole bill is gonna confuse me as he moves through what I can assure you

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of this. Okay.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: The facility shall cause a

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: person to be evaluated at a

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: competent, no less than six months. Upon the determination by the clinical services director, does that mean the clinical services director is the one doing the competency here? Or they're gonna because they we're told the other day by DMH that these are, like, $4,000 cost for these, and we're doing every six months here. So who's doing that evaluation?

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It it just says upon the determination, so I don't know. I think that gives some flexibility for the service to be contracted out or for it to be in house.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: In house, if they have one.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: By the clinical services director or somebody who is supervised by the clinical services director. I don't think that language alone answers your question. I think that is an open question.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Then is it okay if I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, yeah.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So then we get down to subsection G, and it's highlighted, so that indicates that this is language being proposed by the health department. So this is or sorry, Department of Mental Health, not the health department. This is a significant change from the bill is introduced. Under the bill as introduced, there is this assumption that competency restoration continues until there is a verdict in the case, and you'll kind of see that in the sentence in subsection f. Competency restoration services shall be maintained until the person receives a verdict in the person's underlying case. However, what this language addresses is a situation where competency cannot be restored. So there's no assumption in the bills introduced that competency can't be restored. But in subsection g, there's this language, well, what if competency can't be restored? Some things to think about when you look at this language is that there's no time frame for when a decision is to be made about whether or not competency can be restored, or there's no standard in the language about, you know, like, if if this occurs, we know that competency can't be restored. And also who is making the decision that competency can't be restored or how that decision made, that's silent in this language. So if the committee chooses to have some type of scenario when competency can't be restored, might wanna think about those points. Who is making the decision, under what conditions, or under what time frame is that decision being made? Is competency restoration attempted for a certain number of months or years and then this option happens? So who'd forgot oh, I should scroll up so you're following along. About that. Because the bill is introduced, doesn't have this sort of avenue or competency campier story, It doesn't have a process in place for what happens if competency can't be restored. The language from the department gives a process that happens if competency can't be restored. That language mirrors or is parallel to language later on in the bill that applies to individuals at a forensic facility who are there because they were found not guilty by reason of insanity. In that section of the bill that we'll look at in a bit, there is a process by which if a court finds that a certain standard is no longer met about the person's dangerousness to other individuals or the property of other individuals. There is an order of conditional release. This language is all borrowed from that language later on in the bill. And if the committee wanted to pursue this, it might make sense to sort of bring those two pieces together so we don't have duplicative parallel processes happening in different sections of law. Do you have anything to add to that?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I was gonna jump in on subdivision two at the bottom page. So I think this is something that can be easily granted. But you see that the way the language reads now, the person shall be committed to the forensic facility unless the person establish a clear and convincing evidence that the person's release would not create a substantial risk, etcetera. So it's shifting the burden to the person to prove that they're not that rather than, I think, constitutional, the burden has to be on the state to establish the person.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. I I I found that as well. Few US Supreme Court cases that highlight that. And so I Yeah. Think that's definitely something that we need to change. Right. I think actually, don't mind.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Right. Yeah. I I'm not sure who in the who in the process here is representing the state. Like, I didn't notice whether it's the state's attorney, like, who's representing the state in these proceedings. But whoever that is should be the one who has to make the, you know, the case. So, you know, the state but I think as I said, that can be remedied. The language can be shifted so that, you know, the person cannot be committed to the gun. So unless the state establishes by clearing the missing evidence.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: One second. Senator Mattos, Catherine. Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: In terms of who's representing the state, wouldn't that depend on what type of case it is? Like the state's attorney would represent in some of these misdemeanor cases we're talking about, but if it were some of the more complex, cases where a life sentence is a potential sentence, in some instances, the attorney general might be the person representing the state. So wouldn't that depend on the case?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, absolutely. And they do have concurrent jurisdiction in Vermont to prosecute criminal offenses, the state's attorneys and the and the AG for sure. So I think you could be general enough so that you're including both, but but whoever that state actor is, for purposes of this and as Katie said in x section as well, should be the one who has to carry the burden of proof, I think. Does that make sense?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. Absolutely. And I definitely agree, and I think the chair brought this up the other day that shifting the burden of proof to the person would be problematic.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right. Senator Norris. So I think

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: in in addressing this concern under two on the next page, it does say that the person shall not be released until the court finds quite clear and same same wording, just starting with that second sentence.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So, though, in that case, I think that is okay because it's the court that's making the findings. Right. And the preceding one, the burden of proof is on the person.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it's prior prior to being committed.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yes. Okay. Yep. But I think you're right. I think the court is fine for the court there.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Languages should be different. Senator, you have anything?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: My question on the language that senator Norris just brought up is around the liberty interest. And is it typical that someone's liberty is held until there's clear and convincing evidence in their favor as opposed to their liberty interest being assumed until there's clear and convincing evidence not in their favor? Because the way that that's worded, they are to be held until there's clear and convincing evidence that they shouldn't be held, whereas typically for liberty interest, they should be presumed free until there's clear and convincing evidence that they shouldn't be. Does that does that make sense?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And I think you're correct that for example, in the involuntary commitment statute generally, the finding that a person is in need of treatment, in other words, a danger to themselves or others, has to be that that that the person that it can only be held if they are found that they are a danger to themselves or others, not that their release wouldn't cause a danger to themselves or others. So I'm not sure if that's if that's necessarily a constitutional requirement, but I think you're right. It's more typically raised in the way that you pointed out. Does answer your question?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yes. It does. And and it sort of is a flag for me that it's a shift away from how we would normally do things and possibly a yeah. Just a flag. Yep.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I may shift off that topic. I had one point that I missed, think related to Senator Norris' earlier question about assessments. If you look at the top of page five, there's language from the department in Subdivision 3 about a person being reassessed by a court every year. That would just automatically happen. And in Subdivision 4, the individual themselves who's being held could seek discharge by requesting a court for a forensic risk assessment. And that Subdivision 4 is very prescriptive about what a forensic risk assessment would entail, the type of information that a court would be considering. It's looking at the person's history of dangerousness, present dangerousness, a description of tests employed to get these results, the examiner's findings, the examiner's opinions as to whether the person would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another or serious damage of property to another if released. But that same level of specificity as to what an assessment would look like is not there in Subdivision 3, which is sort of the annual reassessment of whether the person should continue to be held. So that's just something to flag. Like, are the standards that we're looking at when somebody is reassessed annually? Should they match when the defendant themselves is asking to be considered for discharge? Or is it a different standard? Don't know that from this language. So something to think about.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I see senator Bills get her hand up.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Katie, I have a question for you about this section, but then there's also some other pieces that I actually don't think are in this bill, I think are in a house bill, and that is where HIPAA comes into play with what information can be shared through these assessments.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have to think a little bit more about this, but I think what we have to think about is, is this entity a covered entity? And the way it's set up, housed under the Department of Corrections, and it's not medical treatment that's being provided by DMH or a medical facility under contract with DMH, I think that would sort of govern whether or not HIPAA applies. So I don't know how the program would be set up, if it would be a medical program. But again, being set up in DOC, being very specific that these are not individuals who are persons in need of treatment. So they're not there for medical care, they're there for competency restoration kind of governs that analysis. I might put it outside of HIPAA, I guess, is what I'm saying. I'd have to think a little bit more about it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a complicating factor that DOC is under the agency of human services and

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's in point. Yeah.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because AHS is a covered entity. Mhmm. That's interesting. Yeah. I'd have to think more about it. Do you have anything else? Nope.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm set. Thanks.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you remember when we first walked through the bill, there are two populations of individuals who could potentially arrive at the forensic facility. The section that we just walked through were those folks who were not confident to stand trial and who were charged with a offense punishable by a life sentence. So section 4819A of the bill is the second population. Those individuals are put in not guilty by reason of insanity for an offense that's punishable by a life sentence. So some of the points we already made with regard to the previous section are going to apply here, that's why we don't have a lot written down. But again, the concepts in DMHs A and B are largely already covered in the bill as introduced under subsection A with the inclusion of the offender who's a developmental disability would also be outside the scope of who would be in a forensic facility. So the same language that's being proposed by the department for individuals not competent to stand trial, that same language is being proposed here. Again, we have a similar process and standing and standard for holding and releasing somebody who's being held at a forensic facility. The conditions of release are the same. So there might be a possibility of combining those two sections to not have duplicative language. Now let me talk about the argument proof.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's the yeah. It's it's the same language as as you found in the previous section. So whenever you wanna you decide you wanna correct the language one place, just make the same correction in the other to clarify that it's the state that carries the verbiage with the defendant. Or perhaps, as Katie was saying earlier, you may even combine both of these rather than repeating it twice. I mean, the whole set of sections are very similar. That could be where it lands eventually. But either way, consistent.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then I don't know if you've heard from DOC about this proposal yet, but we just have flagged that as they would be operating the facility and it would probably be important folks

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to get home at this point. Yes. Any

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: anything else from you folks there? No. I think that covers it for now. Committee, any questions for Ledge Council? Well, I know we have, I think Karen Barber on the Zoom who we do have five minutes. We do have five minutes if you just wanted to provide an initial response. And while things are still fresh in our head, and then we can provide additional time next week for more substantive discussion about your response.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. For the record, Karen Barber, General Counsel for the Department of Mental Health. I first want to thank legislative counsel. I know we sent this really quickly. I had sent a companion email trying to outline what we were going to do or trying to do because we don't write statutes. I'm really glad they caught all these things. It's super helpful. So I'll try to just quickly touch on some of the concerns that were raised. In terms of BGS, I think it'd be helpful to understand what DMH does for these evaluations. All we do is set them up. So we contract, we don't do them. We don't have folks on our staff that do them. We simply get an order from the court. We email the parties a team's link. That's all we do. We just arrange for them. So there is no expertise needed. It's really just an administrative task. And as we mentioned yesterday, BGS tends to hold bigger statewide contracts that lots of different departments and agencies can pull from. The idea behind this one was that the state's attorneys and defender general are having their contracts separately outside of our contract, and they're negotiating different amounts for those. We are able to negotiate better rates because we do so many of these evaluations, and the idea is that the state as a whole would negotiate a contract with better rates for everyone that they could pull from. And again, there is no expertise needed to do these evaluations. It's simply administrative. That ends with that. Any questions on that?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I just want to clarify that there's no expertise needed to negotiate the contract. I would assume there's absolutely expertise needed to do the evaluation.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: Yes. No. It's really just negotiating different rates. The contract already, as is, lays out what we need, and then I assume the state's attorneys and Defender General would add what they need. Generally, statewide contracts. The different departments work with BGS to make sure what they need is in the contract, then BGS kind of holds it in and does the rates. For diversion, this is a good question and I had thought about raising it yesterday, but I didn't. There is a difference between competency to stand trial and competency to seek treatment. Think, Chair, you touched on this, there's no liberty interest implicated when you're not going to trial. So there are different standards. I think we can have other folks come in and talk about how they do this in other states and how they differentiate between the ability to engage in treatment or not go to trial versus actually stand trial. We do this all the time, right? Just because you're found and confident doesn't mean you can't consent to treatment, doesn't mean you can't consent to medication, can't mean if people are signing wills, they're signing advanced directives. So competency to stand trial is such a limited thing. It really doesn't implicate the competency to do a lot of other things. So I just kind of wanted to flag that and we're certainly happy to have more testimony on that piece. In terms of who's eligible, I wanted to just flag this because it's a nuance that Katie is correct. The way the language is written now, it implicates anyone who would come under DMH custody. The reason we carved out order of hospitalization is because we, there are individuals who would be under an order of non hospitalization who would also meet that very general definition that we actually think should be eligible for the forensic facility because again, an ONH is not, they wouldn't be necessarily in a secure facility, and so it still leaves open that someone would be in the community in a non secure location. So that is the reason why we changed that language and we added specifically order of hospitalization. And then into the determination piece, someone raised this as a question. Later on in a different part, it's talking about DOC setting up this facility, it specifies that DOC must have a clinical services director that runs the forensic facility, so that piece is referring to that. It's kind of confusing because things are out of order, that's who I think that was referencing to. In terms of why we added language around not being able to restore competency, one, I think it's just the reality that not everyone is restorable, especially folks. There is something called the Slater Method for folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It's much less successful than say in mental health, someone with substance use has different needs. There's also a lot of national litigation around not being able to just hold someone indefinitely and try to continue to restore them to competency. I think excellent point, we didn't flag any timelines around what that would look like, so that is definitely a needed piece. But that's what we were trying to address there, was kind of looking at what other states are dealing with in terms of needing to make sure that we put a time limit on that. In terms of the burden piece, that is language that was already in the bill. DMH didn't draft that language. Whatever you want to do with the burden, we don't have a position on. Really, what we were just looking at is you know, how someone was getting into the facility and what they were getting in terms of treatment wise at the facility. And then I did just want to flag, and I kind of put this in my notes and talked about it yesterday. So the language we propose doesn't have the victim's notification pieces, because I didn't know that we were the best people to do that. I flagged where I thought it would fit in. I wanna make clear though, that we do think those are important pieces. Those just weren't in our language because because really, it's not our thing, but we want to make sure that's in there and just to raise that we support putting language about victims' rights in there. We just didn't have that. So I think those were the really quick things I wanted to touch on while everything was fresh.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Appreciate it. Committee, we're pretty much at time, but does anybody have any super quick questions for Karen?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. And we'll definitely be in touch with Emery as well and schedule some more time next week so we could get in.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Department of Mental Health)]: K. Wonderful. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. Maybe I guess, switch gears now to s two zero nine. Thanks. Thank you for coming in. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Are we on 1.1?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We're on 1.1. I know our decision point is around subsection B. I think we're gonna be talking about whether or not I think we're gonna be getting a new copy so we can make that decision as the which version. Do you need MRA so you can use screen? He took care of it before he left.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning, Rick Siegel with the office of Lipsoid Council. And Mr. Chair, yeah, how do you wanna proceed with the language?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: that is the only second point that I'm remembering. I don't think there were any other pieces where we were at odds at the committee. Double checking my notes here.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just an old one or

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: what's that? Just an old one? Yeah. That's as passed

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: or as introduced. As introduced. So I guess I'll ask the committee where we alright. One sec. Are you looking for a? Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: should have it. I should have a lot of things.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Alright. I got it. So we're at the decision point of whether or not we're keeping in subsection b, which is line six through eight on page two, draft 1.1. And I know this was one that we spent a lot a lot of time back and forth on. Is there anybody who wants to start the conversation on this? Senator Norris and then Senator Nader Hashim?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yes. As you well know, I've had a problem with v in its entirety since we first looked at the bill as introduced and as we're looking at it now, there's been several several things added to this, but I think that, the state of Vermont presently has over 2,200 buildings that they're they're in care of. One way or other is leases or whatever else. And we also have, 252 municipalities and town clerk's offices and those buildings and whatever else. This is the only portion of the bill that have a problem because I think it's too broad. I I think it's too vague. I guess at any point in time, we could identify even with the new section as to or attempt to identify building control or or a political subdivision of the state, I think this particular thing is is, is just way too large. The rest of the

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: thing that can go along

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: with the schools, the hospitals, the facilities, the day care facilities, even if you look at the educational definitions, I mean, those are vast too as far as what can be. But I wanna maintain it that our schools and our and our hospitals and our emergency facilities remain a place where people can go safely so forth. But I just think that this is way too broad. I'm not comfortable putting in here. And and, basically, I oppose such a different beginning of having a section to begin at.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sarah Holzky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Rick, is my understanding correct that the only aspect of this bill that has been challenged and upheld is the portion on state, county, and municipal buildings because New York did something by executive order and won the challenge?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So mostly so, yeah, New York City has an executive order that applies to state buildings and prevents civil arrest around state buildings in New York City. The courtroom aspect has also been litigated, and that appears to be constitutional, but correct. The other locations have not been litigated so far, churches and hospitals and educational facilities.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So at this point, section b is the only part we know is defensible and courthouses.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So defensible meaning that, yes, the district court in New York said that there's a sovereign interest in state buildings. Correct.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. And the way that we've changed the language in this draft does narrow what that means fairly significantly. Yes?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Significantly, that's kind of up to maybe personal opinion. I think we made we made it clear that Salt Shed is not where governmental services are provided. And it's also clear that a park not be included or a pool because it's not a building necessarily. But I think it's also you can narrow it some more, but that would be up for discussion how you wanna do that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And then my other question for you from a standpoint of sort of being part of a community is what rights do people have to government services?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are you talking about constitutional rights or just in general right to access government services?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Both.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm failing to think of any, you know, the right to vote is one that's actually enshrined in the fifteenth amendment and nineteenth amendment. But I'm wondering, you know, the right to enter the state house is a limited right because even in statute, if someone is a public disturbance or is threatening, they can also be removed from the state house. So I I don't know if there's a constitutional right. Also, the open meeting law, you have the right to be in a public body unless, you know, there's some kind of issue to it. So I don't know if there's a constitutional right to be to perceive government services or be in a government building. But certainly, the argument is that the state has more sovereignty over that location than the federal government would. I think that's the argument that the district court made in that one case.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate that piece. I feel pretty strongly that this should be included. I think, you know, people being able to engage with government and get the services that government provides is pretty critical and worked to really limit the language so that it only applies to those instances. And I also think, you know, given that the executive order in New York that applied to all state buildings, presumably including the salt sheds, has been upheld is an additional factor in in why this makes sense and should stay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The do you happen to know whether or not, Rick, whether or not the executive order extended to state buildings in whole or in part, or was it just in whole?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My understanding was it was in whole, but I can you know, if you give me a few minutes, can check that. And

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: how would you define a state building that's controlled in part?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I this was language that my colleagues in that home help structure. My understanding is that there are times when the state does not own the building, that it might lease a portion of the building to handle government services. So the in part language was intended to ensure that those buildings are also included in definition of a state building that is controlled in whole or in part by the by the state or a political subdivision state.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So would a private entity that's renting state property, would would that property be considered controlled by the state in part? A private entity bring

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: say say it again. I'm sorry.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So if a private entity is leasing state property, and that private entity is doing whatever the private entity does Right. That building is controlled still in part by the state. Right?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That would be my understanding. Yes.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Can I ask a follow-up to that question?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh. Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. The instance that the chair is putting forward, that private entity would not be providing governmental services, though. Correct?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A building in which so in that building that

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is leased

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in some way by a private entity, if in that building there is some part of that building where government services are being provided, then I would argue that it would be included in the exemption from civil arrest.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Because I sort of on the other side of that, what came to mind was like the DMV in South Burlington, which is at a strip mall. So we want the DMV protected, but going to the furniture store next door would not be getting governmental services.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So, yeah, I'm thinking about the the term building. I think it's potentially confusing. Is it strip on one building? Or is it, you know, separate there's one one kind of building. Right? So I that would not be the intent of the law. Right? But I think that you could argue that it is part of the same building. Right? Sorry. Can't give you a more clear answer, but that's because there isn't one probable.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, it sounds like a lot of

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: this can be challenged. Okay? Next to approach this. This is a very gray area. It wouldn't have anything concrete other than I don't know who did the executive order in New York, but that was our new mayor,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: whoever that may have been,

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: blown it up. Okay. But I I still like that. We're running into a a I think I know what the senator is is looking to do here, obviously, but I think we're running into an area we really should take our time, and we shouldn't be exercising this right now. I think it's just too challenging and too broad.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other senators have thoughts on this? Once I I'd like to get an opportunity to see if there's other folks who wanted to chime in.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I'm I'm kind of a senator Norris on this one. It's very hard for me to define that because to go back to the salt shed the town of Melton offers a pile that you can go get sand for your driveway walkway. That's a governmental service. It's you know so it's it's just that trying to find that definition and then with the building in which controlled in whole or in part in which governmental services are provided, would that be extended to a subcontractor working on behalf of the state? So I'm thinking of the bill we just had, state subcontracts evaluations. Would that also be covered under

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this? So greeting while I was I was talking. No. No. No. That's on me. If a contractor is providing government services. Yeah. Can you what what's an example that you can think of?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: So like in our forensic facility bill, they have to subcontract that for the evaluation piece. Is that Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mean, to me, if it's in a building that is controlled in part of a lot of state, the government service to me doesn't matter if it's a private entity or

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the state or close to the act. Right? That would include being included.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. I mean, I can the broadness of it. I'd like to be able to narrow it down and I'm in support of the other areas that are in this bill. It's just the the vast array of the state

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: or government buildings. Excuse me.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry about those two?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I mean, I think if the concern is the clearness of the language and the most defensible language, it would make the most sense to just do what has been upheld in New York and have it applied to all state buildings. I was working to try to compromise by narrowing that, but I feel like if the concern is how vague it is, then let's just do what New York did and was upheld as constitutional and have it apply to all state buildings. You know, I brought the narrowed list in the vein of compromising and trying to narrow that list.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry. No. No. I

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I still have I have an update on the executive order if you care to see. Yes. In fact, me share my screen so you can see the language. One thing, it was a state governor executive order, so not a New York City order. I misremembered that. It was governor Cuomo back in 2017 or '18, of course, no longer the governor. So I just wanna show you the definitions here. State facility shall meet any building or any part thereof owned or leased by any affected state entity and that includes all agencies and departments over which the governor has a ding of authority and all public benefit corporations, public authorities, boards, and commissions for which the governor appoints the chair, etcetera, etcetera. So again New York maybe uses different names for the way they structure their government. I don't quite know the way New York labels agencies and departments and how much they can afford. The governor has it with us. But this is the order that the District Court upheld. It's a public benefit corporation. Again, the New York Yes. Right? It's gonna be different.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So that may or may not apply to Vermont is what we're saying. Just the way the terminology that they're using here, because they're governed, which is set up differently, run differently. You see that that may not stop not a play to

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the government entities in Vermont, is what you're saying?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the way that New York defines,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know, their agencies and departments, you know, I don't know the governor's authority in New York and what they label. Is it just the executive branch, for example, in New York? I don't know. So I I can't speak to how broad this actually is.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Could you just scroll to where the prohibition says Yes. Then senator Bobosky has a question.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's the next page here. So civil arrest by federal immigration authorities may be when within state facilities when accompanied by a judicial warrant or an order authorizing them

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to take any custody. Sarah Rossi?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. So I understand, Rick, that New York may define things slightly differently or or do things slightly differently, but the underlying decision that the state does have the authority to say what happens in their state buildings would apply to Vermont, even if we use different words to define that.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, I have reluctance of removing this. At the other hand, you know, as as the chair, it's my I'm I'm trying to make sure that whatever we do get out, at least there's some consensus, and we're also able to see it through all the way through the house and then back from here and to the governor's desk. I mean, we have state buildings. We have our right as a state to exercise our sovereignty over those buildings. Fortunately, this bill is very expansive, more so than what previously existed. It was just the provisional courthouses. We're still keeping the traveling to, entering, remaining, and so on and so forth for all of the new places that we're adding. We got bowling places in there.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: it's, yeah, it's quite vast.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: expansive. But, I mean, at at the other hand, it's it is our right to exert our sovereignty over our own buildings. So, I mean but, again, I also want to see whatever we pass out of here have some degree of consensus and a actual likelihood of becoming law instead of dying in the house or dying on the governor's desk. So I'm reluctantly fine with removing that section and not touching anything else. That's my if if that's yeah. Well, that's that's my And then, Senator Baruth?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: So just to echo one point that you said, it is a very expansive list. I was initially worried about that because it's amending a statute that was successful to protect court proceedings people going to and from. I one worry I have is that we would make the list so broad that, you know, it might conceivably endanger that piece. But this is kind of deja vu for me because we had a very similar discussion when I put in a bill in order to prohibit firearms, thank you so much, in three different locations, government buildings, childcare centers, and hospitals. And around this table we talked about it. We came to the exact same argument over government buildings that there were simply too many of them. There were unanticipated buildings, the Salt Shed being the one we always come to. But in the interest of moving that one along and making it law, it is now against the law to bring a firearm into a hospital. But we had to drop childcare centers and government buildings. Childcare centers are still protected here in the things that we all agreed on. So again, reluctantly go along with dropping b if we keep everything else understanding that it's a very difficult thing to try to limit the federal government's access and and ability to operate within the state. So I guess I come down similarly to you, senator Josh.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just quickly for the record, it's not just the federal government. It's similar to us entirely. Yes. Absolutely. It could incidentally affect the federal government.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, correct.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I just, again, circle back to the fact that, yes, this is an expansive list, and the only proven part of it that is defensible that we are adding is section b. The rest of it is up to question as to whether or not it would stand up under scrutiny. And so for me to take out the only part we know we can do seems ludicrous rather than leaving in the narrowed list. And if we're worried that the language doesn't match, we could revert back to all state buildings. But this is the only part that has held up to scrutiny that we are adding. Like, know courthouses has, but that's already law. So I think it's frankly ludicrous to not do the one thing we know we can do. And when I think about the services people are accessing, whether that it would have a chilling effect on them accessing. It's services like Reach Up, it's services like DCF support, it's services like potentially going to one of the buildings to do an Immigrations and Customs interview. Like, are the services that we most want people to engage with, and this is the only aspect of the bill that we're adding to law that we know is defensible.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, thank you. I I think it's I get I get where you're coming from. I I think, however, it's would it risk to send a bill to the house with a three two vote knowing it'll die, and we won't be able to create these protections for places like schools, churches, polling places, and so on, and throw away all the work that we have done. Senator Norris?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No, I'm also I'm good with that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, I would entertain a I don't know if I need a motion for this, but

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You need a draft a new draft.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: New draft.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I have a draft 2.1. Mister Jared, do wanna briefly see it? That would be great. That all it does from the previous draft is remove

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the which I have the right one here.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This Subdivision B on page two. So draft 2.1, I believe, should be on the committee web page. Again, the only change from the last draft, the 1.1 amendment is on page two, the removal of Subdivision B, which was previously the government building exception. So now the is polling place. Everything has moved up one subdivision. No other changes to the bill from the last amendment.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any questions on this new draft? Senator Baruth?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't have a question, but to your point that all this may be for naught, everything we are adding may be ultimately challenged and determined that we can't do this. The only thing we can for sure do is government building. So if we pass this without the thing that we know we can do, it all may be for naught.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So it's my understanding the sense that I'm getting is probably have going back to what we did for two zero eight, probably four one vote for the amendment. Then would it be correct to say that we're if that amendment passes, we're unanimous in our support for the new draft?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am. Alright.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I would entertain a motion then to vote out favorably the amendment. To I booked a motion to amend the bill. Yeah. I'm relying on you for this. Correct. You've won the. Oh, sorry. One senator Norris? I'll make that motion. Oh, any discussion? Perfect.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Call the roll.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Norris?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Senator Baruth?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yes.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Mattos? Yes. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: This is the motion to remove the one thing we're actually able to do?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: This is the amendment.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. No.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Hashim? Yes.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Four one zero.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Now So now it's been amended. And now I would entertain a motion to vote out version 2.1, right?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You didn't need you didn't need both, Mr. Chair? That

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: was actually a quite yeah. That was

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a question I had before.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Because we're amending two zero nine

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or strike You're adopting the report of the committee to adopt draft 2.1 the amendments of your own any amendments of

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: the bill. But then we don't have to vote it out?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, as the committee you have adopted well, my understanding what just happened was you voted on the report of the committee being draft 2.1. At that point

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, I think we're trying to have two votes.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: We voted on it on the amendment because it

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was a strike all right? Right.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: And now we voted to amend two zero nine now we're voting as amended.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've never been a part of that type of procedure in a committee. I know on the senate floor.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I feel like it's all pretty I think it's clear what we're Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The senate floor there be a vote.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: No. We often and senators here would often make that motion as Okay. As amended. So we would have two votes. I think you only need to report one.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. The one yeah. The one is gonna be Yeah. As recommended. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. So I'll double check with

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my staff to you and make sure that's what the.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I'll check with

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: our staff

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as well. Make sure we're covering our bases

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: since it's what we did earlier with two zero eight. I'd entertain a motion to vote out favorably draft 2.1 of s two zero nine. Senate Baruth. Ah, Senate Baruth. You'll see that. Please call the roll. No discussion. Any discussion? I'm gonna get right to you. No. Okay.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Norris?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Baruth?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yes.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Mattos? Yes. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Hashim?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Five zero zero. Which is the vote, I believe, that will go in the calendar.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. Yes. You that was your vote to adopt this? Yes.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And has it out of no.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And who wants to report this out?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: He might have just walked out. I'm sure.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, we'll figure out a report. Just make sure you let me know. Okay. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nice to meet you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. You. Thanks for asking. Got flexibility. Oh, okay. Are we Yeah. We are