Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: I'm live.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are live. Good morning. We are in Senate June, February 19. We have S 193 in front of us. And we have commissioner Manoli to here to testify on a pretty narrow portion of the bill. So just wanted to give you the floor and hear your initial thoughts and I suspect we'll have some questions.

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: So thank you. Thank you members of the committee. It's an honor to be here. I'm Wanda Manoli, commissioner of buildings and general services. I do appreciate I'm now I'm gonna speak to the draft. These are, to draft 1.1 that's dated, 02/16/2026. I appreciate the work that's gone into the bill from the first time that I read it. So thank you. I was a little concerned that I had a whole new role and responsibility with the previous draft. Yeah. But I think, you know, in reading the bill and understanding the goals of what we are trying to accomplish, very simply moving the contracting process for this, overall master contract to perform the evaluations that have been outlined, makes total sense, and we understand that. We've gone through the bill. We see you have some criteria, there are some expectations. I think it's important we understand that the intent of the bill is for all parties to have access to those services, and that is something that we can accomplish on behalf of the language, and if that's what the committee is looking at. There's, two if you give me a moment, there's just two so I did talk about the parties, because you do talk about that on, page two. There's some specific, that all the parties, that have underlying, group actions within this will have access. And that is correct. That's our understanding that they'll be able to access the contract to perform at the different times, the types of evaluations they need.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So just logistically speaking, so it would be either the the prosecutor or the defender reaching out to BGS and saying we need a competency eval or how No.

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: So what the process would be, the courts or the the prosecutors would would have access to what we call, an umbrella contract. So it would be a statewide contract that they would be able to utilize. And within that, you would identify, and moving forward with this, I'm I'm sort of explaining I'm answering your question and telling what you do. As we would develop the RFP to go out, we would reach out to those parties to ensure that the contract would have elements that they need in order to utilize the contract. So it would be a very open ended discussion before we put the RFP out. But it's a statewide contract. We wouldn't manage it, and that's one of the pieces that I'd like to point out. We would make the contract available. We would manage the process. We would work with all of the parties on getting a clear cohesive RFP, that they can utilize, and they they would be guaranteed the price and the services would be in there. So is that clear?

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

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: Yes. I think there was a draft where we were actually I I think it wasn't really the intent, but it was we were reading it that we would be the ones managing the oversight of these, and that's not in our wheelhouse. So and so speaking to that chair, if you just give me a a second. I think it's on page 10. And on page 10, Section B, this

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: is

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: the section that you are referring to about the Any records related to a personplace of the forensic facility shall be exempt from public exemption popping under the Public Records Act. I just want to point out here because this is where it came to us. BGS will manage the process, which we do manage put the contract in place. When contractors aren't following a contract, they'll come to us and we hold them accountable to the provisions in in the contract. But I do wanna make sure that everyone understands that we wouldn't be paying those bills on behalf of the individuals that use them, and we would not be managing or handling the records. Those would sit with the entities that utilize the contract. So if there was ever a public record request, and there are certain things that are preserved in it, it wouldn't we would not be processing or managing that. We do not want to be the formal keepers of all of the records. And that's really, really important that that's not assumed that we will be, that that sits with the businesses that use the contract.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Senator Baruth.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Is there a language change in the bill that is needed to make that clear? Or is that just something people need to be aware of? I think

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: I don't think you have to put it in the language. I mean, you I I'm gonna be really honest. I haven't put a whole lot thought into that. But, you know and and we could just reach back out to you if we think there's, like, a sentence that we could add that everyone understands that when they use the contract, they're the ones that are responsible for maintaining those records. Mhmm. Sometimes that can be confusing. You know? But I also, this is not my area of specialties regarding the subject matter, but, you know, I do think that there's probably many of these records that are preserved or are not available under public records because they're about individuals. So I'm not that concerned, but I just want to make sure that everyone knows when they utilize it that that they're responsible for it. Yeah.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: That makes perfect sense. And Yeah. I appreciate it. If there is something that you feel like should go in there and make that clear, I can just let us know. So and if there's, we'll

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: just send we'll we'll send you a note. I'll go back and just talk to my team and and talk to my my general counsel to see if there's anything that we would think would need to be there if that's acceptable.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. That that sounds good. Thank you.

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: So those are my comments on version 1.1. Do you have questions of me? I don't have any other questions, but

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: do you I know I do know you have a few other colleagues who are here. Did you want them to testify on anything or they just hear just in case? Or

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: Cole Cole just Cole has oversight of our our legislative process and sort of keeps monitoring things for me. So I don't think he has anything that he'd like to add. No.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just wanted to offer the opportunity and

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. We just wanted to hear from you regarding the the contracts piece and anything any other thoughts that you may have on the bill. So yeah. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Your coming

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: in. Have a great day.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You as well.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Okay. She

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: night. She has has a good

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Next up, we have commissioner Moran.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Next or Yeah. Awesome. Great. Good

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: morning. So thanks for coming back. Yes. The the bill, as you know, has gone through some changes since you last testified. And I think our committee has, thought of new questions questions and concerns. And so just wanted to first give you an opportunity to provide any new testimony that you might have if you've been tracking the bill. And then I suspect we may have some questions to follow-up regarding the current state of the bill.

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: No. I have I have no additions to make based on the new language. My testimony from our previous visit remains largely the same. There are six individuals currently in our custody, who have been alleged to have been responsible for nine murders who fit the description that is outlined in this proposed language. And we not only have them in our custody, we're at DOC prepared to maintain them in our custody and prepared to maintain others who we hope never we hope this doesn't happen. But should other people commit similar crimes or be alleged to have committed similar crimes, we'll hold those individuals as well. To the extent that this is a codification of something we already do, DOC is supportive of this language and that's about all that I've got. Thank you. The initial question that

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I had, the six individuals right now, are they do they mix in with other inmates? Or are they in their own wing or section of the facility?

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: They are not housed only there's no wing that houses only those six individuals, if that's what you're asking. With regard to mixing in, they are housed in wings that generally have people who are also undergoing certain kinds of medical care. And so it is although I would have to check with you to make certain I'd to check back to make certain that none of those individuals is in Genpas, but I don't believe they are in our general population. But I'd have to check to make certain about that. I want to I can do that for you. Okay. Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's that's all I have for now, senator Baruth.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: These are six individuals that have been found not guilty by recent infinity or not competent to stand trial?

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: They are individuals who are awaiting trial. Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I know a few other a general discussion around General discussion around whether or not this should be under your purview or the Department of Health purview or making it the agency, the AHS and kind of trying to divide responsibilities, where DOC would be responsible for the making sure there's a secure facility and DMH would be responsible for ensuring that there is adequate care and appropriate care being provided. Do you have any thoughts on that piece?

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: Well, anything that's under DOCE or under DMH is under AHS, of course. It's all under AHS. And so the Secretary is, you know, has been involved in these conversations and the review of this proposed language from the beginning. The people who are in our custody are receiving care that we provide either through our own auspices or under the guide of our contracted healthcare provider, WellPath at this time. And I don't see a reason that that would necessarily change. We'd to add additional capacity, especially with regard to competency restoration. That's not something that we currently actively engage in, although we do engage in mental health treatment. But that is something that the healthcare provider with whom we currently contract provides in other locations. So I don't see that as a difficulty. It's just a matter of contracting and or hiring new individuals. But ultimately, people in our custody receive care in our custody. And

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: there was one other piece we added, which was that the Commissioner of Corrections shall provide adequate and appropriate care rather than may provide adequate and appropriate care. Any thoughts on that language change or does it not quite make a difference?

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: I believe it's fully incumbent on anybody who sits in my seat to actually to do that already. There is no one in our custody for whom we do not care. The Vermont DOC is very clear that custody has to come with care. And Secretary Samuelson is very clear that a community level of care is what we are striving for. The shall versus the may, I don't I cannot imagine a commissioner ever hanging his or her hat on the May for why he or she chose not to provide that kind

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of care for someone. Any other questions?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Are you, sir? Good to see you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You as well. All set, Greg? Yeah. I I think we're all set. If you don't mind sticking around us

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: in case I shall remain until we're done. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: Good morning. Good morning.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: For the record, Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health. I apologize for the delays. We wanted to really make sure that, you know, as an agency and as an executive, we came to you with a proposal that that works for everyone. So I'm here today. I I was gonna go through the new draft that Jared Bianchi sent out last night. Do you all have that?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I don't have it in front of me. I did look through it.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Okay. So I was gonna go through the changes to that if that works. Copies that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. We'll we'll get copies.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Great. So I wanted Before sorry.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Before you go through that copy before you go through Jerry's copy, just because we don't have it in front of us, Could you hold off on going through that and just provide any other testimony you might have with paper that we might have in front of us so we can follow-up?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Yeah, absolutely. Yes. My plan was to first go back to kind of basics and what I first talked to you all about a few days ago, which is that the goal is to address the gaps in the system. And this isn't all about mental health. We agree that there are gaps, and those gaps are having real impacts on public safety. And so while this bill won't solve all the gaps, we do think it's a good step forward. As I mentioned before, Vermont's mental health system already treats individuals who would be considered forensic. So that's not the gap we're trying to fix. Yet some of the language in the bill as it stands and some of the discussions that you all have been having, it feels like we're kind of inadvertently going down a path of creating an alternative system designed to meet different needs, but actually with the same standards as the current mental health system. So what we're trying to do is once again get away from that and actually address the gaps in the system that are impacting public safety. And that's because, as we talked about, people can be incompetent and sane are dangerous for many reasons other than mental illness. We already have a place and a solid system through our hospitalization system for people who have high mental health needs and meet this criteria. Don't want nor do we think it's wise to build a forensic hospital to hold mentally ill individuals. We believe they should continue to receive the services in our hospital system just as they do now. But what we don't have is a system for those with issues other than mental illness or those whose mental illness is not acute enough to be in a hospital or any type of restoration services. So again, that's the gap that we're really trying to fill. And I've said it before, but I think it's important to say again, we do everyone a disservice, disservice, the defendants, the victims and their families, the public, if we make this only about mental health, because then we're not actually addressing the problems. So the changes, again, that we'll go through are really focused on how do we get away from them and how do we make it broader system? How do we not try to recreate what we already have, but instead actually address the problems? Once you get the language, I'll go through it. But I did want to touch on one thing, which is location. And so in reviewing some of your testimony this week or last week, I know there were some questions about whether or not it actually should be a psychiatric hospital or should be River Valley. And I hope by us coming in and kind of rephrasing and making it clear that we have a mental health system and we're not trying to create a new mental health system, we're trying to fill gaps, that you'll see that those aren't appropriate locations. But I do also want to say that the policy committees on both the House and the Senate side have studied that issue for years, considered those facilities and have determined for a myriad of reasons that they're not options. I don't want to get into detail about that because I think it confuses the issue, but I just wanted to stress that we're really not trying to create like a new system for a parallel system for those with mental illness, but really, we're trying to fill the gaps. Does that

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: make sense? Mean, to that point, I'll comment that. Yeah, there has been a lot of conversation about should this or shouldn't it be in a correctional facility? Thank you. I think, you know, one element of that is, you know, we're looking at the six people who are in a correctional facility and are not confident. That that's my understanding. You know, if they were confident, they would still be getting held at a correctional facility anyways because they would be getting held without bail. I was able to do the jurisdictional survey this morning and saw that there were around 20 other states that have forensic facilities inside of correctional facilities and then about a dozen or so other states that have the option for a correctional facility if it's basically an extreme case or a case in which it's punishable by death or a life sentence. And so I'm getting the sense that it's kind of refocusing me back to the point, which is that this is for a very narrow scope of offenses and a very limited number of people who would fall under this category. So not a question, just just a comment as as you testify.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Yep. Great. Do you want me to go into the language?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. We've got copies. Great.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: And so again, this is a joint between HS and the Secretary's Office and Governor's Office and the State's Attorney. So I'll go through all of them. Some of them are minor, but just so you have it. So on page one, line 15, so the changes are in green that we're proposing, just so that's clear. Okay. And that's just adding the site to right now, 18 VSA is the civil commitment statute, so that's an order of hospitalization out of civil court. Eventually everything does move to civil court, but we've also just simply added in the criminal court statute that authorizes hospitalization. Just to make clear that who we're talking about. On page two, lines three through 15, in here I know that a previous draft we had suggested putting in risk assessment language, but it actually probably wasn't the best location for that. And instead, what we've tried to address is some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the things you've talked about, which is what happens when someone can't be restored to competency? And so this talks about being able to get an evaluation that an evaluator is saying whether or not they think someone can be restored to competency, which is common in other states. And as we talked about, some people just can't be restored. So this makes clear that there's a path if someone doesn't think they can be restored, that we can know that. And then it gives the option of committing them to the facility if they meet the other conditions later on. Does that make sense?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think so. Okay.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: And then page two, lines eighteen and nineteen. This is a change and I think this is something you've heard about really from victims, but it's changing it from a verdict to final disposition. And why is this important? Because competency, as we've talked about, is fluid. So you can become incompetent at any stage of the proceeding, including after your trial. And we have had instances where there have been issues where someone's been found guilty, but then there questions are of competency before sentencing. They can't be sentenced until they're competent. And so we do want to recognize that there may be some situations, and you'll see language a little later on that talks about how you could keep someone in a facility, that they may need to be continually placed in a facility that helps them keep confident until the end of the actual whole case. So that's what we're trying to get through with that language. On page three through nine through 11, this is where we add some of that language. So it says the court can make to keep them until there's a final disposition if the court finds that the individual is unlikely to remain confident outside of the facility. So again, some folks, once they're restored, because you can be restored for various issues, it could be mental health, could be substance use, it could be a TBI dementia, there's lots of reasons why you could be incompetent. So those individual factors in the person's history would allow the court to make a determination about whether or not they think the person would remain confident or if there was a need for them to remain in a secure facility. So

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: one one question I have, how how would this interface with somebody who is currently being held without bail, which I would imagine which would apply to everybody under this category. So with the person oh, wait. Actually, I think I've answered my own questions. So if you disregard that.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Okay. Any other questions on that, please? Let's see. Page three, lines 12 through 21. This is just changing the burden a little bit. I think it read before that it would be the Department of Corrections seeking actually going to court and seeking the medication, and this is really putting the burden on the state's attorneys to be doing that court case at the request of the Commissioner. And then it also adds in the CEL standards, And those are what I talked about last week or before, I forget. But that's the US Supreme Court case that lays out really clear criteria for when you can use a voluntary medication for competency restoration. So we thought it was just important to put them in statute and make it really clear what the standard was. And then going over to page five, line 13, that is just adding or line four, I apologize. That's just adding in back that criminal that criminal site that we added in before just to make it really clear what we're talking about. On page six, this is where we get into kind of the meat of what we're trying to do, which is we're taking out mental disease and defects and we're adding in qualifying condition. And again, that's important because this isn't just about mental health, and if you essentially have the same standard as we do for hospitalization, you're not actually addressing the gap. And so this is the one place where I'm going to jump around because then we go if you go to page nine, starting on lines 19, that's where we add the definition of what a qualifying condition is. Any condition, whether mental, congenital, traumatic, however acquired or developed, or any other circumstances affecting the person's ability to stand trial or sanity at the time of the event. So really what it's meant to do is say, this could apply, again, we're talking about a very narrow subset of folks to begin with, but it applies to any of those folks. So someone who's been found confident for any reason or in safe for

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: any reason.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: And so there's changes that you'll see kind of throughout page seven where we're changing throughout the rest of the document where we're changing anywhere where it says mental disease or defect to qualifying condition. Does that make sense? Okay.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: So I know this is I'm just clarifying this in my own mind. So on page one, there's a condition has been found not competent to stand trial. Mhmm. So we're we're dealing with that issue. So you're when when we get to qualifying condition, the last cause is any other circumstance affecting the person's ability to stand trial or sanity at the time of an offense, is that pertaining to competency? Yes. So competency at trial would not be mental health, would be any circumstance?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Yes, so right now people are found incompetent for lots of reasons other than mental illness. So this is meant to encapsulate that. So to show that no matter what reason you are found incompetent for, you could be treated there. What

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: would be a good example of a non mental health related thing that would make someone incompetent?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Substance use it's

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: a big one.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Substance use or TBI. Dementia we see, intellectual developmental disabilities.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Okay, so

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: yeah,

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: the addiction piece makes it much good.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Thank you. Yeah. Oops.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry about that. I

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: have a question and so sorry. I can understand the not competent to stand trial folks who are currently, you know, maybe being held without bail in court, but what

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: where I really have a hard

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: time setting something in a correctional facility as someone who has been found not guilty. Yes. It's by reason of insanity, but I I it doesn't pass the constitutional straight face test to me that we would send someone who has been found not guilty to jail. And and so I am really struggling with that. And and again, I I can understand when we're talking not competent. If those people were competent, they would be being held. This makes sense. Mhmm. But someone who's been found not guilty can't be sent to jail. And so I'm having a tough time with that part.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Yes. My thing I don't know if it was Jared or Dominica that talked about that, that in order for them to even argue the not guilty by reason of insanity,

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: they would have already have

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: had to go through the trial piece where the prosecutors had to prove every element of the crime. So some states had guilty by reason of insanity, and that makes it's essentially the same thing but it's a nuance in words. I think what we're trying to address here is that we're talking about very serious crimes. We're talking about individuals that for whatever reason, can't be held with a traditional system. Many states, most states, almost all states have developed a system for folks like this to have a secure setting where they are held if there continues to be public safety concerns. So I think one of the important parts of what we're trying to do here is to make it really narrow, make sure it's focused on both treatment, whatever that treatment needs are, and accountability, and have a process where once someone is able to go back out into the community, there's a way and a path for them to do that. And so I think we do have a real gap in Vermont that we don't have a secure setting for folks like that. What I want to

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: be clear on, I'm recognizing that there is a gap. What I am struggling with and, you know, our attorney has testified that of the sampling they did there are he could not find another state that held these folks in a jail. You know we've also heard from our Defender General that constitutionally we cannot hold these folks in a jail and I think for me we're saying it's not a jail but it's in a jail. It just doesn't I'm not denying that there's a gap that needs to be addressed. What I am saying is addressing it by putting people who have been acquitted of a crime in jail is a constitutional problem.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Yeah, so I think people are raising lots of valid concerns. I think we feel strongly that this is a path forward. We feel that it is a path grounded in meeting constitutional requirements. But certainly, those are big policy decisions that you have to work through. So,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, initially, it was a red flag for me as well. And then learn more about the process. And I mean, I think the is the constitutional question has been answered back in the seventies. I'm looking at the O'Connor versus Donaldson case where cited in US versus Weed. And in O'Connor, the US Supreme Court says that the purpose of commitment following an insanity acquittal is to treat the individual's mental illness and protect him and society from his potential dangerousness. The committed acquitty is entitled to release when he's recovered his sanity or is no longer dangerous. So at least for the constitutional question, don't really have a concern there. I I get the apprehension around the concept of somebody who is not guilty by reason of insanity still being confined or detained in a facility. But then on the other hand, if there's still evidence that they they have committed the conduct and there's evidence that they are still a substantial risk having them just go out into the world is a disservice both to that person and the community to which they're being released. I guess I'm just saying I'm not concerned at this point. Sarah Bahos.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I fully recognize the constitutionality of of commitment and we use that in lots of different places. I mean, not lots because it's not something that happens incredibly often, but we have civil commitment processes. And and certainly, what I am suggesting is that the what I am not suggesting is that the only constitutional answer is we just let people go. What I am saying is that my understanding is that we need to ensure that they are in a commitment setting in a treatment facility not a jail.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I've gone back and forth I guess to me the problem is mostly that they're connected physically because then you're sending them to the same place but if I think about it rationally they're gonna be in a highly secure setting in both places. So both are in effect a jail. They can't leave when they want to leave until they're determined no longer be at risk. So to me I don't don't anymore go down the road of could they be connected to a jail or not because in the end I don't think it will matter. That doesn't speak to your underlying question which is can you you detain them? But I think the case that the chair brought up clarifies that for me. So I I it's it's it seems it seems tough to have somebody found not guilty by reason of insanity, but because they were found not guilty by reason of insanity, they're gonna be held. That's it's it's just a necessary paradox, I think.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think the important distinction is regardless of where the facility is, the distinction is, are they getting treatment? Are they going through some sort of recovery process? And are they or aren't they intermingling with other individuals who are incarcerated? And I think that is a very important distinction that we have to establish.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: So I want to be clear, my underlying question is not can they be detained? I think that is quite clear that they can. My concern is if we are talking about treatment and we are talking about treatment best practices, those don't happen in prisons. Those happen in places I mean prison is often an incredibly traumatic experience. I would argue that one of the, in spite of the fact that in The United States it is the largest provider of mental health care, it is not the best place to get mental health care. And I know we're not only talking about mental health, but it's not just about is it connected? It's about are these uniformed guards that are providing care, are the what is going on in the rest of the facility? Is this adequate treatment? And I do not think that the prison system is where people should be getting treatment. I understand that there are people who are incarcerated because they have been convicted of a crime that also need treatment and yes they should be entitled to that but it is not the most therapeutic setting. It is but the underlying question is not can they be detained? Think that is very clear. The underlying question is should they be detained in a jail?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Well, and if I might, assumption here is that when we're talking about the forensic facility it would be operated under different rules with different goals than the prison even if it was structurally connected And I think that lays this lays out some of those rules. But whether they would be armed guards in there, I I couldn't say, but I'll tell you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So just wanna get back on track to your testimony here. Yes, Sure.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Okay. Let's see. Page seven, all of the changes on page seven were really around that qualifying condition. It also just added some language that the Commissioner of Corrections would provide all reports required under this section

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: the state's attorney. So just kind of clarifying that role. Page eight is again just adding that qualifying condition instead of the other language. And then on page nine, I know that you've already heard from some victims. We certainly DMH has done a lot of work with victims' families. And I know that Jennifer Coleman is coming in tomorrow. So we tried to highlight here is an area where we think might be right for victim voice. There is a House Bill H-six 27, which because it's attempting to make changes to the civil system, don't think are actually allowable under state federal law. But this is a place where we think you could add victim poison. And so this is some of the language from that bill, which is basically that any hearing under this section, and this is the kind of the discharge section from the facility, the victim may express views concerning the events and preferences for the person's placement and care, and the court may consider the victim's testimony. So, again, we're just throwing that out there as we do think it's important to think about victim voice in appropriate places. And so we were just trying to highlight where we thought it could fit in. Lines 19 through 20 is where we added in that definition of qualifying condition. On page 10, we just added in an extra who, which seems like maybe it was missing. Page 11, it's just renumbering it because we added those definitions. So those are the changes. We tried to really narrowly tailor them and just really focus them on the problem we're trying to solve, which is the gaps in the system that are impacting public safety and how do we kind of make this draft a little bit stronger so that it meets those needs. So I'm happy to answer any questions about that. Thank

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you. I think if you can provide any additional comment on the discussion we had a few moments ago regarding the concerns around treatment in a correctional facility and whether or not it is sufficient or needs to or if it would be the same type of appropriate treatment that a person would otherwise get at a hospital. Because I know that well yeah I'll just leave that there. Do you have any comments on the discussion?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Well it would absolutely be different than what they would get at a hospital because these are folks that don't meet the hospital level of care so they're not eligible to go to the hospital. So in no scenario would they be in a psychiatric hospital. So that's again kind of the delineation. So if someone needs that, we absolutely want them to be getting that treatment in the hospital and that's where they should be receiving treatment. That's where they currently receive treatment and that continues to be the plan. We're talking about people that don't need that high level of care. If at any point and there's language in there, someone in the forensic facility decompensates to the point where they meet hospitalization criteria, then DMH would place them in a hospital, treat them, and then discharge them back once they were treated. So we're not talking about folks that need to be in the hospital. If they do, they will go. We're talking about folks that don't need that high level of care. And so that's I think one of the differences.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And these are also again all folks who would otherwise be in jail if they were or

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: in the community. There is no other custodial setting other than Dales Act two forty eight, which is pretty narrow and they don't have secure facilities. There is no other secure custody in Vermont other than currently, other than DMH and DOC. And so these are folks that again don't meet the level to be in a DMH hospital. And so there is no other secure setting.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Nader Hashim?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I thought there was a secure residential setting at River Valley?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: There is, but again, that's a high clinical threshold. So it's not just for anyone. You can only go there if you really have those high mental health needs. And so again, we are serving people in that facility that may fall under this. But that's again not the gap we're trying to address because if they're there, then they're in a secure setting. The concern in the gap is the folks that are not in a secure setting, the folks that don't have anywhere to go because their symptoms either are mental illness or they're not mentally ill in an acute stage that they need a secure clinical setting, which we have. And so that's the gap we're trying to address. We can't just put people into River Valley if they don't meet that high clinical criteria because of our licensing and all sorts of issues. Yes. I'm confused.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: So when I look at the bills, and it says that if they don't have that level of need and they can prove they don't have that level of need, then they need to be released. But you are telling me that the systems we have to meet clinical needs I'm really confused because what my understanding of what the bill is trying to do is that any of the people that we're currently talking about would meet the criteria in the bill to not be held if they don't meet the criteria to be at River Valley or be in one of our set secure current secure settings.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: I'm a little confused too but let me see if I kind of understand. What I'm trying to say to you is that I think the original bill and how you have kind of started having conversations is you were you were essentially creating two standards that were pretty much the same. And we're saying you don't want to make that if we're trying to fill the gap, right? We have a mental health system. And if people need treatment, they're getting treatment in our system. Those are high clinical standards, right? And so not everyone is, you know, not a lot of people are in voluntary settings. That's a good thing, right? We don't want a lot of people in voluntary settings, but we have that system. What we're talking about is for everyone who doesn't fit into that system, that there needs to be different criteria related to treatment and public safety. Now our criteria doesn't include public safety, right, because we are a healthcare provider and what we are focused on are what are your clinical needs? And so what we're saying is there needs to be a system that looks at not just your clinical needs, but also what are the public safety needs and how do they go together. And so what we're trying to create with this is for a very small narrow population of folks accused of committing very serious crimes that public safety and treatment are part of it. And so they are different criteria. So that kind of answer your question? No,

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: but I appreciate that I am trying to figure out how to put it into words. So for the people that are not competent, I fully understand why this bill

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: works, how this bill works.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: For the people who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, we had a discussion, I think, yesterday that they cannot be held simply because they are still dangerous. We may not like that, that it has to be the combination of still having mental health or qualifying condition need and dangerousness. It can't be one or the other. So if they're no longer meeting the clinical criteria for treatment, how can we still hold them at all?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: So I think the bill lays out kind of how you do that. If you're asking how that's different than DMH

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: No, I'm asking how that's constitutional. My issues with how this is worded is that I think the whole the section about those who have been deemed not guilty of every reason of insanity is unconstitutional. Because what we have heard is two criteria have to be met to continue to hold someone who has been found not guilty. And that is that that clinical, however we're wording it, that treatment need is still there and they are dangerous. If one of those things falls out, we can no longer hold them. So if the clinical need is not high enough to meet the treatment level that we currently have in existence? How can we constrain to constitutional Because

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: those are different standards because medical because being needing to be in a mental health hospital is a much higher standard than having clinical needs that are relating that are significant enough that it's relating to public safety or dangerousness. So if someone has, say, substance use issues, they're never going to be eligible for a hospital. It doesn't mean that they have unmet treatment needs that impact public safety, but they wouldn't meet our criteria. That's the whole point. They don't meet our criteria. We're developing a different criteria, still connected to treatment, but we have to acknowledge that our treatment thresholds for mental health hospitalization are different in other settings. Does that explain now That's I see what you're getting the difference, is these are very high over here for a very narrow issue which is do you meet criteria to be in a hospital? These are do you have enough treatment needs that it's impacting your ability to be safe in the community?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Does that? Yeah, it does help me answer that question. Don't know that it fully answers my concern about it being in a jail, but it does help answer the question about Sorry

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: it took me so long. That's okay. Sometimes we just got to figure out how to say the right

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: things so we understand. Exactly.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: One piece that I wanted to raise regarding section one, think I've figured out what my concerns. If in the very rare circumstance that an individual doesn't meet the threshold to be held without bail for a life offense, I think there needs to be language indicating what would happen if somebody is not held without bail and they're not confident and or charged with a license. Yeah. Think it's an incredibly rare circumstance where that happens, but I think it's a thing it's an issue that needs to be addressed, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that. So

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: I well, I did the Sweeney Public Defender work, like, twelve years ago. I haven't done it in years, so I don't know enough about it. That's probably a good question for the state's attorney or attorney general. But certainly, the goal is to address all the gaps. So if you see a gap, I know you have a lot of expertise in this, then then we are supportive of filling all the gaps.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I've heard about a lot of that.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: But I can certainly also take that back to get the perspective of of Jared and and Dominica, if that's helpful.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Because I I just don't want there to be a risk that we're you know, because it says a person shall be transferred to a forensic facility and if the threshold isn't met to hold somebody without fail, forcing them into the forensic facility, I think, would potentially be a conflict. And at least this is what I saw from some of the other states that have similar language, but also, I guess, a safeguard in place for that circumstance. So I guess that's just a note for later. Committee, any other questions?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I do do have a question for drafters. Can we not use green?

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: Yeah. That's really hard to read. You

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: can't It is. Can't please go ahead. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Do you have any additional testimony? Nope. Thoughts? No.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: I'm happy to answer any additional questions or comments needed.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Let me just come through this one more time to see if I can. Well, one question. I I don't know if you'll be able to answer this. I did send it to judge Zonay, and he's talking to some of his colleagues and he'll get back to me by tomorrow. But I think there was a question about whether or not we should be using the civil commitment process through family court rather than the criminal division because there's already some of that process already created in the family division and familiarity with it. By any chance, do have any thoughts on that?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: So I think that part of the reasoning why the joint decision was to make there be continued jurisdiction in criminal court was that family court matters by statute are confidential. And there is a real desire with this process to make it, because it is more focused on public safety and treatment, that victims have a right to be involved to see what's going on. In family cases, they can't, Those are closed proceedings. And so the idea is that it would be a more public process. And so that there would be that option for people to be more involved and to see more transparently what was happening.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Did that answer?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. No. It it does. I think the the other question I had around that, which I think would be a judge's only question is, you know, bifurcating the process and having hearings at family court and also hearings in criminal court and whether that can muddy the waters a bit because when you start having separate hearings for the same docket in different courts, it just gets confusing for everybody involved. So I guess that's less of a question, just more of a comment.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: I don't know that there would be a place for a family court if these are folks if the goal is to address the gap, which is folks that aren't necessarily in the mental health system, I guess there could be a case where there is an order of non hospitalization, although for the most part, we're talking about folks that aren't under DMH custody. And I think that's one of the things we've really seen with accountability court. I think there was this idea that most of those folks are actually interacting with our system. Very few of them actually were. And so we're not talking about folks that are really already in the civil system. We're talking about folks that aren't in a system because there's a gap. And so I don't know that it would actually be a huge difference. Because again, a lot

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: of them aren't already in Family Court.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Actually, the last question I have here that we were talking about is on page nine, slide 14. And I'm I'm looking at the drafts, not not the drafts that we got this morning, but there was a question there where it says the commissioner of corrections shall establish and operate a locks and secure forensic facility. And I believe the committee yesterday was contemplating adding the commissioner of corrections in consultation with the Department of Mental Health shall establish and operate a less secure forensic facility. Do you have any thoughts on that potential addition?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Think it could be with the agency of human services. But again, think this isn't a mental health problem alone. And we need to, if we really want to address the gaps, we need to kind of stop thinking about it that way. But certainly, I think the Department of Corrections is already under the agency of human services. We work closely all of the time. But I think if you want to add AHS, that makes sense. But I wouldn't call out any specific departments because again, we're trying to address kind of the issue holistically.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other questions? Comments? No. Anything else for you?

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: I don't think so.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any well, we've got additional time. Any other witnesses in the room who wanted to chime in based on what you've heard so far? No.

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: much. So

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: generally speaking, committee, where do we how how do we feel about this now based on the best of all you can see?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I'm I'm more or less satisfied with the draft. I mean, we had some additional decision points we wanted to go through, preponderance, convincing, etcetera. But it seems like those are markup, you know, final markup questions. So I I would be ready to move toward markup. I

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: mean, I don't think that's a surprise. I have concerns, but I and I'd like to hear from the ACLU on their views on the constitutionality. I I agree there are gaps to solve. I'm not convinced this is the constitutional path forward.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Which, sorry.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Which specific constitutional questions.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, so your point about someone who's not able to be held without bail in the competency process Mhmm. And the competency restoration aspects seems okay to me. It is really, I'm gonna try to find it in here, and I know we're all looking at different versions. Section 40. On this very colorful draft that begins on line 13 of page four, that is the folks who've been acquitted and are now being held in the jail.

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: Like I said, with

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: with the addition of the

[Karen Brabham, General Counsel, Department of Health]: of what you have brought up on the

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: competency restoration, I I'm fairly comfortable with that, although I'm certainly open to hearing what the ACLU has to say. But section three to me, I I do understand the gap that's being described. I certainly agree that there needs to be a solution. I am not convinced that sending those folks to jail is the solution.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So what I'm not trying to be facetious. So what is the constitutional question?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Can we send someone who's been acquitted of a crime to jail?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No. If they're not guilty by reasons of insanity and there's still a substantial risk of public safety, yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I don't think we can send them to jail. I think we But

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: is it a standard keep them Issue. Contained in a forensic facility.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: That's what I'm saying. If if you choose to call the forensic facility a jail, it's a paradox you can't get out of. I guess the question is, does the forensic facility differ significantly in terms of what its mission is, therapeutic setting, etcetera?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: And I do not think So I guess where it does not square for me is how can we say it's not a jail if it's in

[Wanda Minoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services]: a jail?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I think it's the same way you can say that psychiatric hospital that has locked doors and a secure perimeter isn't a jail even though you can't leave. Yeah.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I don't think it is the same and I'd love to hear from the ACO here.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I I was listening on my way in and, you know, I struggled with the same thought of putting these these individuals in in a jail. But as Senator Baruth said, when when you think about it, you can't come and go as you please. So if the setting is right, I think it's a fine place to be able to to house these individuals as a forensic facility. So that kinda solved my concern. And just the same thought you had where, you know, you're found not guilty for reason of insanity and you're being jailed, so to speak, in the forensic facility. But I think that concern was eased for me with the testimony that was given before about how it's kind of just what we call it. In other states, it's called guilty by reasons of insanity. So that eased my concerns a bit. It's just kind of the the wording and the paradox that we can't get out

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: of. Mhmm. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Is that Lars? Any thoughts? How well is you well known? I missed most of the testimony here because I went into the house floor? I guess I'd like to hear from the ACL ACLU, see what they have to pay. Don't say I'm sure it's not gonna come as a surprise to me, but let's give them that opportunity to express their opinion. I did reach out to see if they can testify or if they want to testify a little while ago. So, hopefully, we can get them on for next week. Anybody else that folks think you can hear from?

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Health and welfare is gonna take a look. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm wondering if there is some engineer we can hear from perhaps as well path regarding what the actual treatment and competency restoration process looks like. So you can hear how it differentiates from the standard care that any other sentenced individual or incarcerated individual would get. Again, think it goes to the underlying issue or the underlying question of how are we distinguishing between the forensic facility and the jail and how are we making sure that the people in the forensic facility are getting the treatment and the competency restoration that they need to get in order to distinguish it from just being incarcerated in a jail for a correctional facility. So I guess question for commissioner Morad, do you know as to whether or not well path or any treatment providers from DOC would be able to testify to that? WellPath has

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: made itself available to ACI and and other committees on other matters. Mean, I'm confident they'd be able to come

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: and talk about this. Okay.

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: I believe these are services that

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: they do provide in other facilities in other states.

[Commissioner Greg Moran, Department of Corrections]: And so I think that they would be able to be to be able to get some information to this body. Great. Could you

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: or a colleague of yours We will with our committee assistant, please? Get us that contact information. We can hear from them next week, and then probably get the ACLU on schedule as well. Are there any other witnesses that folks wanna hear from? No? Okay. Alright. So on that note, I think we're all set for today. And thank you again to all the witnesses for