Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Hello? All right. Good morning. I'm Ben Satch Commissioner on March 26. We're going to get the walk through of

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the Legion Council regarding the amendment that's come from members of health welfare and institutions. We had a pretty substantial walk through discussion from the lead sponsors and DOC and DMH for the last panel we're here. And there were some minor tweaks that we see at the bottom of page one, but you did just want to hear from our Legion Council regarding the amendment first and then we told since it's technically a floor amendment, we're doing a straw poll on it. Does that sound about right? Yeah. Yeah. So we'll do that. And Eric, the floor is yours.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Thank you. And good morning, everybody. Eric Vispajuk with the Office of Legislative Council. As the chair indicated, here to talk with the committee for a couple of minutes about proposed four amendments S193, the forensic facility bill, which the committee has taken a lot of testimony on this year. The amendment that you're looking at now, may recall this committee dealt primarily with the requirements and process for someone being sent to the forensic facility, whereas the health and welfare and institutions committees are dealing with the issues of what happens and how the person is treated once they are there, and the requirements that the forensic facility have in terms of treatment and the facility itself. So that's the essence of the amendment that you're looking at. The big picture of it, it talks about requirements for the forensic facility and how it's going to be, look at page one for example Subdivision 1, how it's designed and operated in a manner that supports the therapeutic recovery oriented trauma informed environment. Subdivision 2, actually subdivision two was a version of left disability, so that language is unchanged. Can't use any persons, it's ordered to admit. And Submission three is where changes are in between the time that the committee looked at it. I think was last week actually, end of last week. And that's when the different committees who were looking at this discussed possible changes and the changes you see are highlighted in yellow. Basically they involve the requirements about how the forensic facility treats and houses people that are transferred there on the basis of being found either not guilty by reason of insanity for variety of companies to get a trial. And so the language opposing those requirements on the facility provides that the facility has to provide for the safe housing and management of persons, including the ability to separate the population by sex and the proposal stand for gender so that the facility would have to. And again, it's not a requirement that it necessarily happen immediately, but it at least had the ability to separate population by sex or gender. So that's one proposal that changed the language that they had in the previous draft. And then it goes on to say, and to otherwise address clinical, safety, or operational considerations as appropriate, and here's the court classes being changed, including the possible operation of multiple facilities. Now the previous version had said that multiple facilities possibility would be only if required by the clinical needs of transferred persons. The proposal is to strike that language and that the facility would be subject to this requirement, generally speaking, that the car cooperates multiple facilities is something that has to be in their plan, not connected to necessary clinical need. It should be anything that all facilities have to be. Those are only the two pages, so I could pause there for a moment. I know the rest of the committee had already looked at, but we could review that if you prefer, whatever you think.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any additional questions? Any questions regarding the rest of the amendment which you already discussed on the previous hearing? Eric, is there anything that you need to add regarding the rest of the amendment that we haven't heard already?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so. I think it's all language that you had reviewed and that there's a change in this version of it. The pieces about the rulemaking and the reporting that were added in in health and welfare. There's an interim report as well that in October, DOC is supposed to come back with an interim report so that it keeps the legislature apprised as we have progress on moving forward with the facility. I think the committee had reviewed those and had a pretty clear understanding of what the requirements were going be. I guess I would say that yesterday I was involved in health and welfare and institutions. And so we've done a drop hole. Everybody also approved the changes that you're looking at this morning. It was unanimous and everybody was there in health and welfare. In institutions, there were only three members present. So the three who were present are pretty good. And they may have talked to the other two who went there afterwards, but I wasn't there for help. I was

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: in yours. All right. Any final questions? All right. So I guess we'll do a straw hold. All those in favor of supporting this amendment to SB 193, raise your hand. Do support the amendment because I think it makes the bill better, but I still don't think that it makes the bill good enough that

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can support the bill. I do not want to be clear. I don't want to surprise you on the floor.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't think it wouldn't be a surprise but thanks. Okay, great. Well, thank you Eric. And this be added to the notice calendar as an amendment underneath S-one 193 and I know it's set up for a date search for Tuesday. Does that sound procedurally accurate? Yes, so now that

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think of it, the point being from all of these members, usually the sponsor of the amendment is the one who brings it up to the senate office. So we'll all of these. We'll check-in.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Perhaps they can do it together. Yes.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so we'll make sure

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: it's good having. Either way, we got our scruff all done.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So we'll we'll could finalize it and figure out who it is supposed to take. But there's plenty of times that we say it's not I think I heard that yesterday, right? Just take certain was next Tuesday. Yeah.

[Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great. So we can adjourn. Thank you, Eric. You.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll see you on floor. All from the check-in from this. 10:30, Frank.