Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Good

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: afternoon. It is May 27 in Senate Judiciary. We are taking up S-one 193, which is about to have third reading in the house.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: You know, it's gone all

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: the way through. Gone all the

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: way through. So that will be on our calendar, I believe, tomorrow. And there is a lot to it. I'll just get a number of paintings made in the house. Maybe want to just refresh our memory on what those changes were, the general overview, and the questions. We also have representative Will Long here with us, chair of house judiciary. Eric, if you wanna provide us just the general overview. Yeah. And we'll spend time independently trying to figure out details on our own. Sure. If there are questions, we'll come back.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yeah. Okay. All right. Good afternoon, Eric, it's time for the office of legislative council here to give the committee a big picture overview and any details that you want to hear about with respect to S-one 193 and the Forensic Facility Bill, which remember passed the Senate a while back prior to crossover has now come over from the House last night. And the reason that you've got multiple documents in front of you is because the proposed committee amendment from the House Judiciary Committee passed on the floor last night as did two fairly substantial amendments to the committee amendment. One that I think have in front of you that's for representative Wood as the lead sponsor of that one. That's version 4.1. And then another one with representative Burditt as the lead sponsor that has the draft number 5.1 on top of it. All of those documents, in addition to the one you don't have, which is the underlying house issued community download, which I believe the memory's gonna have to get copies of, all passed. So they're all gonna have to be integrated into one document, which has not been done yet. That's take time and my understanding of that's difficult to ask critics, has not been more readers. But as you might, as you'll see from the House Judiciary Committee amendment, which Henry's passing out, that one is a 29 pager. The representative verdict amendment is a 26 pager. And then you've got another four pages from representative Wood. So all in all, you're looking at a 60 page book. So it's it's got a lot to it. I'm not gonna line by line it, in other words. And I don't think you have the time or the instant at any scene. But from the big picture, and particularly helps explain why there's so much volume to the amendment when it's going be integrated is that when the 193 passed the Senate and it created the forensic facility, remember for two different populations, people found not competent to stand trial or people found not guilty for reasons of insanity. And they were placed in the front of the facility and generally speaking, competency restoration services for the incompetent group, other services for the NGRI group were overseen by the Department of Corrections. That was the body that was overseeing it when it left the Senate. When it went to the House, that was amended in the House Judiciary Committee so that the role of the Department of Corrections, and I should add, I'm sorry, the OHS Corrections Institutions Committee as well as the bill was as it was down here. The bill was looked at by multiple committees upstairs as well. So I spent a lot of time in each of those committees. The initial conclusion was to rather than have all those services at facilities supervised by DOC, they would be supervised by the agency of human services medical director in consultation with the various departments, Department of Mental Health, Department of Disabilities, Aiding Independent Living, Department of Health, because the folks that are there are there as a result of some mental health condition, which the department is providing services to that person depending on what their condition is. For example, a mental health condition is DMH, intellectual disabilities, you know, that sort of thing. So that was the initial proposal. The amendment from Representative Verdant others. Actually, if you looked at the list, it's actually Representative Burditt and pretty much, I think 10 of the 11 members or so, nine or 10 of the 11 members of the House Judiciary Committee also post sponsored that amendment. So that, and in consultation with House Corrections institutions and other substantive committees upstairs, come up with a different plan. And the plan is this, so the Department of Corrections would be involved as the lead body, both in terms of supervising a person who's released, providing security at the facility, that sort of thing, as the sort of lead entity, but only temporarily. So that's one of the reasons you're looking at two voluminous amendments that are coming together here because the way it's structured is that for the first three years, the Represent Verdict amendment couldn't time that any better. The sponsor is here. That is the amendment that puts DOC back in as the lead person in consultation with these other departments, etcetera. But that lasts for three years. And the idea there is that it's going to take time for a forensic facility to be up and running. It's not going to happen right now. And there needs to be time to plan, to think about where it's going to be, should it be a new facility, should it be co located with an existing facility, etcetera. So since that's not going happen right away, but there are still people who otherwise qualify for the forensic facility if one existed. So they're going need those services and that person would still be in the DOC facility now were not for this option of a forensic or competency restoration program. So that's the proposal. You're going to have two different effective dates. And one effective date, which will be July 1, as it turns out, will be for this competency restoration and forensic program run through the agency of human services, DOC is the lead body, and that will be in effect for three years. And for that three year period of time, the agency of human services is going to be working on a feasibility plan. They've got to come back with a feasibility plan to propose where such a permanent facility could be located, how long would be staffed, how much it would cost, that sort of thing. But the idea is that that other section of the actually, this case, it's the underlying fiduciary committee amendment that has DOC not involved as much. That mainly the Department of the Needs of Human Services. In the consultancy, but the most part DOC's role is very limited to providing security at the admitting area, around the outside perimeter, it's co located with honor branded affiliate, etcetera. That part of the bill, those sections don't come into effect until 07/01/2029. So during that three year interim, which is what represent burden at all is amended. During that three year interim, you have DOC being the lead body on a forensic and competency restoration program. We're gonna run through DOC to, in effect, temporarily as a sun as sun scene. And also, as part of the amendment, the agency is required to establish emergency rules to lay out how that interim temporary competency restoration program is going to

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: be operated. So can I, I just want to see if I'm understanding the flow chart here? Yes. In the bill's current form, with all the amendments considered attached to it, is the process now that for the next three years, DOC is taking the lead on this for the individuals who are already in DOC custody. And then at the end of the three years, there's the expectation that there may be a separate facility or a co located facility at which point DOC would essentially hand over the reins to DMH, was it?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, actually, AHS and all the departments within AHS supervising the population. And there will be emergency rulemaking.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Can you were you about to go over the emergency rulemaking?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I could you're right. The only thing I would add to that is that during the interim three years, it would not only be people who are currently in DOC custody. There could be someone during that three year period who might be, remember the criteria, charged with an offense with a lifetime maximum, held without bail, found in confidence in trial or not fixed by race and sanity, etcetera. Someone could meet those criteria in the meantime. And the emergency rules have to establish this program consistent with the statutory language that goes into effect now in the meantime. So that they would cover people who might be, who were otherwise qualified for the Brenna facility prior to 07/01/2029. They could be and would be qualified to be there as well.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you, Matt. Yeah, just want

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: to real quickly, even the interim period, which we're also kind of talking as a bridge to get us to the facility, the AHS Medical Director is in charge of the clinical side of this. DOC is not doing, would not be doing the treatments. They would be providing the security within the facility because it's in a DOC facility. The biggest difference after that with the permanent facility is that DOC would not be in the facility providing that security because presumably we'll have a separate facility. They would still be able to provide security outside. The other big difference is after this bridge period DOC will have less involvement in the monitoring of any individual who happens to have been released pursuant to the order or pursuant to supervision. Which has not really changed that much from what we got from the Senate, that component of it. After the three years? After the three years, DOC would

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: have less involvement in the supervision. How would that work if somebody's on, if they're putting somebody on probation or parole or anything like that? Am I missing something?

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: If they're incompetent to stand trial they don't have a sentence because they haven't gone to trial.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not probation. It's not probation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Supervision by the departments under EHS including DOC. Right.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: And there'd be a risk assessment done by a department of Dale or mental health.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Right. There's a risk assessment that is done to

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: So these are the situations in which somebody's, it's determined that their qualifying condition wouldn't create a risk, a substantial risk of injury to another person. We're talking about those people who are getting released.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Right.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: And kept on this, okay,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: I get it. And also it could be that they're not restorable. It'd be not restorable and dangerous or a lower level of danger where they

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could not be in the forensic facility. Okay.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So if they did regain competency and they went to trial, they'd be sentenced and then they could be on probation which PMP will be monitoring them with conditions from the court or furlough. PMP would monitor them in the field with conditions from DOC or parole. War, the PMP officers would be monitoring in the community with conditions set by the parole board. But they've been sentenced. These are folks who

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Right, they're not sentenced.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: They're not sentenced.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Yes, it's so a different kind of supervision.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a different

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: kind of supervision. And we also included language that would help our PMP offices based on staff and resources available to them because it's a different population than what they're used to in monitoring out in the community. So they would need different training and tools.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Got it. Thanks. Senator Mattos, I know you have a conference committee. Yeah. Go to. So I did text Senator Baruth to see if he can join us so that we can have at least a quorum. I believe we can still continue listening, but we can't make any policy decisions with only two members.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: So I do have a,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: and maybe you're gonna get to it. I'm glad Chair Lalonde mentioned that DOC's under the umbrella of the HS. However, in having thirteen minutes to read these documents here, I haven't gotten that far yet. What about at the end of three years, in fact, we don't have this facility? It's also what is plain beer? Is that in the right time as far as you'll

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: see the whole process? I think you could almost sort of look at it as it might be reminiscent of a raise the 80 situation. Remember, sometimes when you come to the end of the period when the age group was supposed to come under the family division as juvenile court and maybe had the legislature several different occasions have looked at it and said, well, looks like you're

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: not ready. So you extend the date. You got three years. So we've actually taken it the fact that the end of three years, didn't

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have Yep. Or if you're at two years and you see at that point, well, looks like you're not gonna make three years, you can always extend it for another year. And in fact, there's a lot of check ins, legislative check ins that are envisioned in the middle as well. So I didn't mention this, but for example, the emergency rules are supposed to be in effect by the end of this year, 12/31/2026, but sorry, that's when they have to be adopted. They don't actually go into effect until 07/01/2027. So that gives the next legislative session for the legislature to look at those emergency rules as they were proposed, provide any feedback with the agency or make any statutory changes that you think are necessary before they become effective. And then in addition to that, at Joint Justice Oversight this year, the August and November meetings, The bill requires the agency of human services to report to JJOC about both the emergency rules and how they're going and what's known as in the bill as a feasibility plan. So the agency also had to come up with a feasibility plan that talks about location, design, planning, costs, etcetera, related to the permanent facility. And that site in New Gulf Of June January 2027. And the AT has to report on that to join justice oversight during his two meetings in August and November as well. So there's opportunities, in other words, for the legislature to see from the agency how you think it's going, drive feedback, make any statutory changes next year that you think might be necessary. But in response to your question, Senator Norris, yeah, that's the idea, is that if it looks like the date isn't going to be met, then you have an opportunity to follow the standards. So I've got a couple of other substantive differences, if think that would be helpful. Yeah, trying to get a sense of,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: I mean, I've got a sense of what the timelines and the flow chart looks like with these changes, with the three years and so on in the emergency rulemaking. Any other substantive changes that are drastically different than compared to what we passed out? There's a

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: few that are additions and changes, not a huge amount. I think I would say much of the court process in which, you know, for example, keeps the standard that the state's attorney has to prove that came out of this committee clear and convincing evidence that the person has a qualifying condition and would be a danger to another person. Same essentially as it came out of this committee, but that does have one difference, which is that you may or may not recall that there's a, as the bill came out of this committee, and as it, I think came out of the House of Admissionary as well, as soon as was an occupation from the House Human Services Committee, that the causality connection between a qualifying condition and that someone is a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. So in other words, state's attorney has to prove someone has to be involuntarily committed to facilities that they've got a qualifying condition and as a result of the qualifying condition, there are substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. So it's a qualifying condition that causes this substantial risk of danger, the shorthand way to put it. The final version of the bill is that both have to be present. The person has to have a qualifying condition and they have to State of China has proved by forensic evidence that their release would cause a substantial risk of danger to another person, but doesn't require the causal connection between the two things. They both have to be shown, they have the condition and they're dangerous, but not that they're dangerous as a result of the qualifying condition. I think that's a substantive distinction. But one that there's precedent for in the current Vermont statutes, for example, the Gale Commitment for Intellectual Disability purposes in the Vermont statutes currently doesn't have it also requires intellectual disability and anger. It doesn't have to be that intellectual disability causes danger.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: That severing up the causality, where did that come from and what was the end of this or kind of any of the reps at any

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: It was from human services and their reasoning from what I understand it is the way the language was suggests that because you have a mental illness or because you have this cognitive disability, you are dangerous. And they want philosophically as much as anything to separate those. So you may have this cognitive disability, that's not necessarily why you're dangerous. They

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: were afraid somebody like with Alzheimer's or the traumatic brain injury that didn't really qualify for forensics were going

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: to get caught up. Got it.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: That makes sense. Eric, can you remind me where that is in this amendment?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Throughout. Throughout. Yeah, many, many times. That language, that standard appears many, many times. So it has to be changed in each instance. Another addition that was made that was not in the Senate proposal or the Senate passed version of the bill involved preventing to the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living to Dale. You may recall that when there's a finding by the court that a person is non restorable, non restorable competency, the court might release the person if the court is non restorable and not dangerous, that's to make a finding regarding dangerousness. They'd be released under conditions, under supervisory conditions. Or if the person was non restorable and dangerous, the court could order continued commitment of the person. Proposals if there's a third option, if the person's qualifying condition is an intellectual disability, then instead of either replacing the person at the private facility or releasing them. It could be if they were dangerous as a result of an intellectual disability, they could be committed to Dale. And that tracks and parables the existing what's called an Act two forty eight procedure. If someone with an intellectual disability can be committed to Dale Knapp if they have committed a crime and have found to be incompetent on the basis of an intellectual disability. So that provides the court with a third option once someone has found to be not historical. So that's a substantive and fairly lengthy substantive addition because there's a lot of processes to help. And again, tracks that existing Act two forty eight process, but it's also reprinted in the bill. Apologies

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: for being a minute or two late, and you may have already covered this, but were there changes to the affected dates or or repeals?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Because if

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: If I'm I'm looking at the right one, looks as though there are other ones. You'll get there, I'm sorry.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did, but I can hold some up for you. Can sum up for you. Absolutely. The idea is that you've got two different systems proposed here for treating people who would be eligible for the forensic facility. One of them is similar to the version that came out of the Senate, in that the lead state agency for supervising the person who is at the facility is the Department of Corrections in conjunction with other departments within the agency of human services. In the other version, which was in the end of I'm not sure which one you're looking at there, the

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: five point one? Five point one.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So that's the representative amendment that passed on the floor last night. That actually, tracks with what passed the Senate. That's the one where DOC has that lead role. Now they're not the lead role as as Chair Lalanne was indicating earlier. They're not the lead person for providing clinical service. That party is still the agency of Human Services Medical Director in combination with the departments. But they do have a lead role in terms of security, supervising the person when they release that. However, that has a temporary effective date. It's a three year, that's why you see sunsets and repeals. That provision has a sunset in three years, 07/01/2029. At that time, the version of the organization and structure of the forensic facility as it passed the House Judiciary Committee, what you're looking at was amended on the floor, an amendment that passed on the floor, the version that passed out of House Judiciary, which in that case, the DOC is not the lead role anymore. It's the HCF Human Services Medical Director in consultation with the agency of Human Services departments that would have supervisory authority over the person depending on what their qualifying mental health condition was. DOC still has a limited role of play, but it is in the language, for example, if you looked at version 7.1 right here there, to see an example of how DOCs roll. Does somebody have a 7.1 there? Yeah. Look at lines 13 through seven. On the first page? Yes. That provides you an example of the general principle of eliminating DOCs. And that version becomes effective 07/03/2029. So that's the reason that you're seeing the effective dates, repeals, that sort of thing at the end. It's it says it lays out a bunch of sections, says these sections are effective now until 07/01/2029, and it lays out a bunch of other sections instead of these are affected at that time in three years.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Okay. So there's three regimes, lack of a better term. There's the emergency rules, those get repealed, and then sections nineeleven get repealed that same year.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But those are, I would view that as part of one regime. The emergency rules have more of the detail that are inconsistent with sections nine to 11 that are in effect.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: So those are bridging sections in effect. Exactly. Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: In fact, there's not. The bridge is pretty similar except for the DOC involvement. Process of who gets put in there, the processes for who's there, the exits that they can make if they're not repairable, or yeah that they can restore the competency. Those are really quite similar. So Sections two, four, and five which would go into effect in '29, are quite similar to Sections nine, ten, and 11. It's just some adjustments so that we recognize that this is going to occur inside a DOC prison in the interim. The big push on that was we don't want folks languishing while we're waiting for this facility that will have less DOC involvement. Yeah. Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Right. So Well, Eric, there any other substantive changes?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They go on the notes I made. The House adds a provision that, you know, there's a lot of evaluations that are involved here when we think about it. Like every six months, someone can get their competency re evaluated, for example, you can ask for it to be evaluated for restorability. House added some language that anytime there's an evaluation required, the defense can conduct their own evaluation so they can get an independent evaluation if they want one. There's some provisions added about victim notification so that when these hearings have to occur on a regular basis, victims have to be noticed that to make a has to be a reasonable effort to notify victims, and they have to be offered an opportunity to be heard if they can be located. And the only other thing I noted was the initial hearing in the NGRI context. That's not guilty by reason of insanity. That's the version that has, remember, so if someone gets found not guilty of our region of insanity of one of those qualifying offenses, and they meet the other criteria, they are placed in the frantic penalty. The version that passed Senate required an initial hearing in seventy two hours, and now it's one with sixty day levain. So the initial hearing is a little bit longer. That's a long time.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Senator Baruth, just a quick question for the chair. I'm looking at the list. Is this the list of all the members of judiciary brought this?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: No. Barbara Rachelson, I don't think was there for she was out for like two, three days. I don't know if she would have signed on to this, but she Substantially from the committee.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Yes. Yes. 10 of the 11. Okay.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Yeah. Great. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't random.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: No. It was one that

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we worked on quite quickly. Every other.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Would anybody be able to explain the going from the seventy two hours to the sixty days and go ahead.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: You could probably get the best explanation from Tim McManus or Jared Vyhovsky. Think part of the issue was that again, looking at the population, that this is somebody who has essentially agreed that they did the crime, and it's a life offense, but they are not guilty by reason of insanity. So it's a little bit different concern as far as having sixty days because this person is not likely going anywhere soon. Even under the current under the current regime, it would be some, you know, there's not even a clear path for that individual. So I think, so we were less concerned. It didn't raise huge concern. We didn't hear any pushback on that, that I recall. Well, I take that back. I think Matt Valerio may have very well said sixty days was too long. Or he didn't say sixty days was too long. He said that could be done in shorter time. He said he didn't need sixty days.

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

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: All right. So the one suggestion, I know when I look at this, when it's all of you together, I'm going to find some things that, because it's pretty extensive pill. And then, you know, we've been working on it for several weeks and honestly I've already spotted one thing. It's not a big deal but it's one that I'm planning on going back to when I sit with this when I see the rules that are going to be done by the end of this year. This is going to be coming back to adjust things. So if there are any things, hopefully there's nothing fatal in here because I am concerned that if it's turned around and sent back to us, are we going to, is it going to time out? There's always fine concern at this time of year And that we have set up and that's purposely why we extended the effective date of the rules to July 29. So we have a chance to go look at the rules and look at the statute again kind of in conjunction with what they come published. And maybe if you're worried about the sixty days, it'll be kind to address that. Yeah,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: wouldn't say I'm worried about the sixty days. Just recalling in my memory, thinking that seventy two hours probably was going to be changed now that I'm thinking about it. I get it. Yeah, I was just curious about that. Representative

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Representative Evans, Chair of House Corrections and Institutions. To follow-up a little bit on that in terms of once this gets in place and it gets signed off, Joint Justice Oversight Chair of that can really make a commitment that we can look at this off session. There is some reporting back anyway for the peaceability plan, but I think, I mean, there's four of us here right now who are on that committee. And I think we're so focused and that we can spend some time in our meetings on session to really follow-up on this piece of legislation and make any recommendations

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for the next term. Good point, thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Eric, any other changes? I

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think that was what I wanted to cover.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: I think it's

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: kind of I just wanted to open

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: up for the reps who are here. Is there any other points that we should be aware of that you want to share with us?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: I don't think so. I think the main thing that's the way I've been looking at it is that we've got the court process that actually judiciary really focused on the judiciary committee upstairs as far as who's going to go in and what are the processes for them to go in and get out essentially. And then the second component was what is this forensic facility need to look like both in the interim and that's section five and section 11. What's it going to look like in the interim and what's it to look like in the long term. That's still mostly Ginny Lines language. There's some fairly minor adjustments to that but yeah that's mostly Ginny Lines language. And then there's where is this going to be and who's going to ultimately be running it and that's where there's the feasibility plan which is new from what we put in here. That's supposed to also come to us by the end of January fifteenth I believe is the date. So those are kind

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: of ways that I've kind of thought

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: of it in my mind.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: And the feasibility plan came from like many corrections and institutions to really say, hey, let's be serious about this. Let's work it through. Let's really figure out who's going to operate it, who's going to provide the clinical services, who's going to provide the security services, and what the cost is going to be.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: And it's going

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be Because it

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: could be on a ground of a correctional facility, though separate. Or it could be something someplace else. Those sightings are really hard to do. That's why we've tried facility. So that's why we have that feasibility plan again come back to justice oversight twice to keep their feet to the fire that we really do need a forensic facility that is operated clinically through the agency of human services and security if it's placed on the grounds of a correctional facility then the security outside the building and at the entrance would be by DOC.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The only thing I would add too is that as Representative Emmons was describing, feasibility plan had reminded me that as we did down here, Katie Flynn in our office was the attorney who drafted and worked on some of those other sections. So wanted to say, I said that I didn't think of anything that I missed, I wanted to ask if Katie noticed that I missed anything when I was, because she worked on those sections with her Representatives Committee and other committees upstairs. So in case I missed something when I was trying to highlight the major differences.

[Katie Flynn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. No, I think we've covered it. So there's the clinical section that came from Senate Health and Welfare and Corrections no, institutions. And that was not changed a whole lot from what happened in the House. So those sections coming back to you intact. There was a change in definition from what was in the Senate version. So now the forensic facility would be licensed as a TCR, Therapeutic Community Residence. That is a license type. It's run by Dale, but that doesn't mean that Dale population is the only population that can be in it. And so other facilities like the residential recovery facility is also licensed as a TCR. And there's some recognition in the feasibility plan that the TCR rules aren't a perfect fit for the forensic facility, there need to be some modifications to the TCR rules to enable the forensic facility to be licensed as a TCR. So that's one of the changes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: And then that only goes into effect in '29. We took that language out forging it through because DOC is not going be a licensed facility.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: Right. The committee, any thoughts, questions, comments? I'm assuming we're going to

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: take a vote on this and now I'm in a position of saying, okay, that our house colleagues get this right correct, all of our mistakes that we sent to them okay and if I have some reassurance and that's the case then we probably can move forward in my mind on this but I'm not going to speak for the other senators on the community.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I can say

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: this that so of the people who we've talked a lot of testimony on this and the state's attorneys, DMH, Dale, AHS, all are satisfied if not pleased and some of them are even pleased. But also Matt Valerio, he came in early and said, we need a forensic facility agreed with that, but we need it to be constitutional and here are the issues that I have as far as why this might not be constitutional. And by the end we had addressed all those issues because I circled back to him including with the amendment that for the interim and he's fine with where we are. And I thought that meant a lot since you know since he was questioning some of the constitutionality issues that the due process some of the various areas so so I don't know if I corrected everything but you corrected what Pam Valerio summer.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: We'll work on it this summer.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The court will weigh in too.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: The court will find the law. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: I'm inclined to concur with the House. I don't think I'd be able to report this out today because there's a lot to it. It sounds like it's going be 60 something pages, but it's technically not even on our calendar, so I

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can't report it today, right?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Well, we could pull it out pending, it's fine to leave until tomorrow.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Has anything from Maury yet? Curious about that.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: We messaged We liked everyone.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Yeah, but they need to put it all together.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Got it. Of time, the integrated office event. Yeah, so I'm we're gonna be here tomorrow. Yeah. I just wanna

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: make sure. Figured I should pass whole year. I'm

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: you guys are always telling people days that like, people from the house were telling me we were leaving last Friday. Then they were like, we're leaving Monday, and I'm like, we're not even meeting Monday. Now they're saying to me Who are

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: you talking to in the house?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: What do think? Just general rank and filers. They they people did not And

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: all freshmen, obviously. But, you know, even Connor

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: wasn't coming off the Wednesday until this morning.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: So We we kinda have a sense of urgency, you know?

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: We're ready to suspend rules and get out of here. Great. Could do that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary)]: So I'll meet with you at some point, Eric, just to make sure I got the presentation and the differences ready for a report for tomorrow and then Sure. I'll take it away. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Sounds good.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Thanks for your work.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. No. Thank you. Thank you for your work as well. Thanks for coming.

[Rep. Alice Emmons (Chair, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Keep on it this summer.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary)]: Giving us a chance to work on it for a few weeks.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Yeah. It's just one of those