So, picking up with S3, and I believe Eric Fitzpatrick is going to walk us through. Yes, that's right, Senator Bruce. Fire it will. Okay, thank you. Peggy's there. I'm going to try and share the document. And Peggy and I were working on this yesterday and I hopefully have mastered this fine art, but the next few seconds will tell us if this is going to work or not. I should first just point out that it introduced myself this is Eric Fitzpatrick with the office of legislative council here to walk the committee through Senate bill number three as three is an act relating to competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense. That bill looks familiar to everybody, it should. This is S3 this year, but last year it was s 183. You may recall that we, the committee spent quite a bit of time on it last year and it passed your committee the Senate Judiciary Committee and it passed the full Senate as well. Then, as we all remember the work of the legislature changed substantially when the emergency emergency was declared as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic on March 13 of 2020. So plenty of the legislation that you had worked on up until that point, didn't actually get to the end and this was one of those bills that you spent a lot of time on but there simply wasn't time with it because of the unforeseen nature of the of the pandemic so it's back. Sorry, sorry. Remind me of the number from last year again. Yes, last year it was s 183 183. And as I said, pass the Senate, but I don't think house that there was time to take it up in the house last year so you're starting again with it with it this year. Is this Eric just to clarify is this. Yeah, exactly what we passed. Other than the effective date. Yep. Okay, other than that it's word for word as far as I recall. Okay, great. Although I should say interesting that you say I'll get to this point when we get there. When you say what we passed. It's what the Senate, the full body of the Senate passed. There was actually a change that was made on the Senate floor which I'll get to when I do the walkthrough but there was an amendment on the Senate for. What passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So what what your committee pass was changed slightly on the floor, but then, then pass the Senate and what you see in front of you is what passed the Senate. Do you remember who made the change on the floor. I'm proud I was thinking about that yesterday as I was reviewing it and I'm pretty sure. I say I'm pretty sure that's the red flag should go up for everybody that maybe I'm not but I think that it was Senator Pearson, and I think Senator Sirotkin as well. With the two folks who I think made the point on the Senate floor and then everyone agreed on a language to address their concern and then it went forward. Okay, great. Yeah, thank you. Sure. So I'm going to try and pull up the document now and see if I can get it in front of everybody. Interesting looking screen. Yes, that's step that's I think I'm on the way, hopefully. Okay. All right. Was I successful. Yes. Yes. A few. All right. All right.  As I mentioned, this is S3 an act relating to complexity to stand trial and insanity as a defense just to sort of, I know that we spent a lot of time on this last year but it's been a while since you looked at it so just as a moment or background to understand what's going on here. This bill has to do with criminal proceedings that involve the defendant's vanity at the time an offense was committed or the defendant's competency to stand trial for the criminal offense and of all those two, those two concepts are certainly very much related in that they both deal with the mental health status of a defendant in connection with a criminal proceeding. They're also two different concepts because when you're talking about defendants sanity at you're really talking about their mental health status at the time the offense was committed. And that's when you're talking about a defendant's competency to stand trial. You're talking about their mental health status at the time of the trial and those are those are two different things so with respect to the insanity defense. What that means is that a person is not guilty by reason of insanity and again that's a term of art that's been used for a long time so I'm going to continue to use that term although obviously it might not be the sort of language that we would use today. But it's not guilty by reason of insanity. If, as a result of a mental illness, they either can't understand that their conduct was criminal, or they are unable to conform their conduct with the requirements of the law. So at that precise moment that the offense is committed they either cannot understand that their own conduct is criminal, or even if they do understand it, they don't have the ability to conform their conduct to what the law requires. On the other hand, when you're talking about competency to stand trial, that has to do with the defendant's mental health status at the time of the trial. And the question at that point is are they and their defendant would be found incompetent to stand trial if they are either unable to understand the criminal charges, or unable to participate meaningfully in their own defense. So either you can understand what the criminal charges are, or you're unable to participate in your own defense. And there's a huge consequence to a difference in consequences I should say to being either found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial. As the phrase indicates, if you are insane at the time of the offense, then you are not guilty of the offense. And that is permanent. You cannot be recharged with that offense at all. So being found insane at the time of the offense is a bar, a complete bar to any further prosecution. On the other hand, if you're found incompetent to stand trial, well, that competency can be regained in the future through treatment, for example, person could be treated, and that competency could be regained. And in the future they could be found competent to stand trial and then they could be charged recharged with the offense. So you see that's a big distinction. There are a lot of very distinctions in terms of the legal effect of the two findings. So there is quite a bit, the current law is very detailed and describes with a lot of specificity, the procedures that are related to the compliance and competency to stand trial, the legal procedures. And that's what S3 concerns. It makes some amendments to the various legal procedures that are related to the insanity defense and to competency to stand trial. So that's the general background. I'm going to move forward with what are the specific proposals in S3 regarding changes to these proceedings unless I can, and the thing I'm noticing here is that with the bill on the screen, I can't see anybody raising their hand. So if someone has a question, please feel free to interrupt me as I'm moving along and I'll try to pause between topics so that there's an opportunity for people to ask questions. Does that seem like an okay way to proceed, Senator Brough? Senator Sears is back now. Oh, okay. Thank you. That's fine. And thank you for the patience committee. And go right ahead. Okay, I got my screen so I can see everybody because I've got a copy of the bill in front of me. I can somebody raise their hands. I might see them. Oh, okay. Yeah, that'd be great. If someone has a question, feel free to jump in and let me know. All right, thanks. So jumping right into Section 1, Section 1 deals with the psychiatric examination that has to occur when the question of the defendant's sanity or competency is raised. So when the sanity or competency is raised, the court has to order that a psychiatric examination of the defendant take place. So look at the wording of the statute and I'm looking at line 12 of page two, I believe it is yes, line 12 page two. You see the way the wording is phrased requires that the psychiatric examination that I just mentioned has to examine both in subdivision one the mental competency competency of the person. And that's line 12 the struck through word and that's existing law and the sanity of the person. However, you know, as, as I just mentioned and as I just discussed competency at the time of trial and sanity at the time of the offense are two different things. And it's not unusual for a defendant to raise competency or sanity, but not necessarily a both. So the language isn't really accurate as to what the psychiatric examination should entail. So you see the proposal is to make clear that these two examinations are different, and that the examination could look at the defendant's sanity or sanity, or both, and you see that new language in line 10. So it's phrased differently to say the examination has to involve look at one or both of the following. So it's not going to be and anymore it would be, you know, depend on the particular circumstances of the given case whether or not it's going to be the psychiatric examination will look at competency or sanity or both. So that's the first proposal that you see there. The language you see at the bottom of that page is just technical and nature to boots and suspenders really to make to make it consistent with the change that I just described so that the language is accurate. There is over on page three, a couple of more changes regarding the psychiatric examination and the first one is online for you see so this psychiatric examination takes place and then there's a report generated and that last sentence at the top of page three indicates who this report has to be sent to. So it's transmitted to the court you see that in existing lines one and two, and then the court sends copies to the state's attorney and to the respondents attorney that's the person who was examined. If the respondent is represented by council, and this adds the commissioner of mental health obviously the department of mental health that's very much involved in proceedings when there's a psychiatric examination of a person involved in a criminal matter. And then this just clarifies that when this report is generated by the, after the psychiatric exam that the, that the commissioner in the department gets a copy as well. Why is that that it's needed to go to the commissioner of mental health. That was something we argued about last year. But go ahead and answer that. I think I think it was a matter of them being because these proceedings will often involve the department's personnel and resources and that they would therefore want to know but I would actually defer to the department's witnesses to more more specifics about why that is. I don't have a compromise. I may be wrong. My memory is always that number of the discussions. Perhaps morning Fox when he tested. Okay. Remind us of why we did it. Okay. Okay. Next subdivision subdivision to continuing on with the subject of the report member I just mentioned, there was a proposal to make a change earlier on so that this examination won't necessarily involve both competency and sanity. But this paragraph involves situations in which it does so let's say that the, that the report examines is that the psychiatrist or psychologist is asked to provide opinions on both competency and sanity. And this subdivision addresses that situation. You see line seven or eight first thing it says is okay those opinions are going to be presented in separate reports and address separately by the court so these two separate issues are going to be addressed in separate reports and secondly the second sense is this idea that if that's the case that both both sanity and competency are going to be examined. Then the examination of the pertains of the person sanity only takes place it's only undertaken if the psychiatrist or psychologist is able to form an opinion that the person is competent to stand trial be sort of think about that. Logistically it makes some sense, because if the if the initial examination finds that the person is incompetent to stand trial, then the trial is not going to happen. It's not going to go forward. So there would be no reason at that point in time for there to be an opinion about the person sanity. So maybe that the person will never regain competence and the trial will never happen so that the, the time and resources that would be involved in the sanity examination wouldn't be necessary. On the other hand, if they find that the person is competent, and there's going to be a question of the person sanity at trial raise as well. Well then it would make sense to go ahead with with the examination of the person sanity at the time of the trial once because the trial is going to proceed and the person is going to be raising that defense. So that's why that I think is is clarified that there's no reason to do, do both examinations until the person is found competent. And does that make sense to folks if so we can move on to the next section. So again, it does make sense but in terms of a lawyer representing the person who might be insane. Maybe they would want to get that done so that the person the issue wouldn't come up again for the person. That's my only thought I mean doesn't seem to. It's okay this way but in terms of the person representing the person who they believe was insane at the time. I think it might be in that person charged. The lawyer might want them found insane so the case couldn't come up again later years. Yeah, that's a, that's a good point, Senator nipka and I think you're going to have some testimony from Jack McCulloch and others who represent those defendants and so it might be that that'd be a good question to ask and see if, if this sort of process is right out here is one that makes good sense. Okay, thanks. So, moving on to section two so now we're sort of addressing a different stage in the proceedings so again so we just talked about how, when sanity and competency are raised a psychiatric report has to be conducted. The stage the proceedings were at now is that well let's let's assume that the report finds and there's a and the court finds as well that the person is either incompetent to stand trial, or was insane at the time of the offense if that happens if the court, if one of those two findings is made, then the next question that comes up is well should the person be committed to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. That question turns on the issue which is a language that this committee I'm sure is very familiar with is whether the person is a danger to themselves or others. And if you found to be a danger to yourself or others, then you would be committed to the Department of Mental Health for treatment after, after having been found either incompetent or not saying at the, at the time of the crime. So, the way the current law exists is that the court has to have this hearing to determine whether or not you are a danger to yourself or others so that's the formal hearing in court, in order to reach that conclusion and decide whether or not to be committed to the Department of Mental Health and at that hearing under current law. The defendant is represented continues to be represented by their criminal defense counsel, but as I just described the proceeding at that time is no longer it's not a criminal proceeding anymore, you're not deciding whether or the person has committed the crime or not, or whether the person is guilty or not that the issue at that hearing is is the person a danger to themselves or others it's a, it's a hearing about the mental health status of the defendant so given that the proposal here in B is that the person is going to be entitled to have counsel appointed by legal aid by Vermont legal aid to represent the person since this again is more of a mental health proceeding at that point, then it is a criminal defense one. And you'll see that language on lines 12 and 13 of page four here which is where we are so if the person's down incompetent or, or insane at the time of trial and starting on line 12, the person shall be entitled to have counsel appointed from Vermont legal aid to represent the person. This brings up the floor amendment that I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony so as the bill as s 183 last year as that passed out of Senate judiciary. So on line 12, the language read the person shall and did not contain the words be entitled to the person shall have counsel appointed from Vermont legal aid to represent the person. Now you may recall that the discussion. When this came out under the Senate floor last year there was a discussion of whether, well what if the person wanted to have their criminal defense council continue to represent them. Would the language has written and as I say it said at the time the person shall have counsel appointed from Vermont legal aid with that language prohibit the person from choosing to continue to be represented by their criminal defense attorney and so there was some discussion about that and I think to address that concern we the words be entitled to were inserted. So that way, you know you provide the person with the option, they can have their criminal defense attorney continue to represent them or they can have counsel appointed from legal aid. And that was the way the amendment was made and that was the way the bill passed the Senate last year. And the defense is a similar issue that we mentioned earlier that, you know, the Department of Mental Health is very much involved in these proceedings, given, you know that the, in this case in particular at this stage I should say in particular the question is whether the person is going to be committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health so this makes clear that the department is entitled to appear and call witnesses and be represented by the office of the Attorney General at that So that's that piece of it. I can move on to the next one now unless there's questions. All right, so now we're moving on to section three and this section involves victim notification. So what's being addressed here is that, you know, as we were just we're talking about the person may be committed to the custody if they're fine found to be a danger to themselves or others so let's say that that does happen. So the court concludes that the person is person in need of treatment, potential danger to themselves or others is committed to the Department of Mental Health custody. So the person is in the department's custody receiving treatment it's always possible that the person status will change you know they may treatment may maybe successful the person could be discharged from the department custody the person could be discharged from a secure mental health facility there could be these changes, and the person's treatment status. At that time, but there's no mechanism currently in statute for victims to be notified. When that happens for when the person might be discharged from custody completely or they might be discharged from a secure mental health facility that a victim doesn't find out. So you'll see that I'm just going to look at existing law for a second here. This is subs. I'm on page five sub subsection C one there subdivision C one. You'll see there is a provision made for the state's attorney to be notified when a person is discharged I'm on lines 10 through 15. So that's existing law says at least 10 weeks 10 days prior to the proposed discharge of any person committed under the section that means you know danger themselves or others they were committed. At least 10 days prior to the proposed discharge commissioner has to give notice of that discharge to the committing court, the court that committed the person and the state's attorney of the county where the prosecution originated. So there is in discharge situations, a provision for notice to the state's attorney, but there's nothing involved provides notice to the victim of the crime. So that's the proposal here in section 10 moving down the page six so you can see what the proposed language and the idea here is that for certain offenses for listed crimes with some exceptions. There will be notice provided similar to the notice that we just looked at to the state's attorney. I'm going to skip over the crimes for a second and go right down to the process here to see you can see that this is paid. Can I ask a question first. Yeah, please do. Um, just this list committed here refers both to hospitalization and non hospitalization orders. Yes, I believe that's true. I think I'll let Katie chime in on that if I'm wrong, but I think that's true. Okay. Yes, committed in that context. Okay, thank you. Sure. So if a person has been committed to DMH custody under these procedures, and then that this is going to change you look at line five page seven, at least 10 days prior to that status changing in this case at least 10 days prior to discharging the person from a secure mental health treatment facility or discharging the person completely from the care and custody of the department. At least 10 days prior to either one of those things happening at the commissioner has to provide notice of the proposed action, whatever that that change in status is going to be to the state's attorney of the county where the prosecution originated, or the justice of the attorney general at that office prosecuted the case. Then second sentence states attorney shall provide notice of that proposed action to any victim of the offense was not opted out of receiving notice I remember that was a discussion that happened last year to the question was whether you know that should notice be automatic or should there be an opt out provision and the conclusion that the committee reach was that you know the default is going to be that the victim gets an opt out but they can choose to opt out. If they'd rather not get it. Brian, Brian, I'm sorry, Eric. Yeah. That raises a question what can the state's attorney do with the information about this person. Since it's HIPAA protected. Can the state's attorney go to the press for the information say so and so is being discharged without a bulletin like they would if untreated sex offender was released from prison. That's it. That's a good question I wouldn't say that I know the answer to that up the top of my head. I would tend to think that because it's HIPAA protected that there's some limitations on that. But I'm not sure. So I can look into that a little bit further and it might be something that other witnesses would have an answer to as well but it's a good question that I'd want to I'd want to research a little bit further. I think it's, it's, I'd like to understand what the limitations are currently on the state's attorney and what they would be if this bill were to become law. Sounds good. Also, Eric on that same section there the last sentence, maybe I missed something that why doesn't that also include the office of the attorney general, or the shell provide notice. Yeah, I was thinking of that too. That's a good point I was wondering if for for consistency with the previous sentence that ought to be that ought to be included. Yes. So just the last last bit about this. The you'll see that the list of crimes now this this process that I just described doesn't apply to all crimes or, you know, a person who has been committed regardless of what the what the crime was. It only applies to listed crimes. And with, I think it's seven exceptions or six exceptions sorry. And that list is is tracks the same list. You remember last year this discussion of well should it be for every crime should only be a certain ones that tend to be on the dangerous side how do we how do we make that distinction. This is just verbatim the same list that's included in the statute that you passed us a few years ago regarding felons and possession of firearms remember there's a that similarly said that it was unlawful for a person to be possessive firearm if they had been convicted of certain crimes and at the same list it said a listed crime with these exceptions because the committee had gone through the entire list of listed crimes to say well are there some that probably not as not involved violence or as serious as the others and should they be exempted and since he had already gone through that list and separate out the ones that didn't qualify once. The decision was made last year to use the same, the same list with the same distinction so that's where that comes from. So now we're moving on to section four here. This has to do with a member the talking about earlier psychiatric examinations when a person's sanity or competency is that issue. And under existing law I'm going to look at page eight first and look at the existing law first, which is lines two to five, a really, really lines three to five actually. So under existing law, if you'll see, starting in line three in the middle there if notice is given by the defendant that sanity is an issue, or that expert testimony will be offered as provided 12.1 that's related to sanity, then the defendant has to submit to a reasonable mental examination by a psychiatrist or other expert. So what this does is that when the defendant provides notice that sanity is an issue in a case. Then the prosecution is permitted to have its own psychiatrist or other expert conduct what's called a reasonable mental examination of the defendant. Here, the rule doesn't address the issue. I remember we talked about how competency to stand trial is different than sanity at the time of the offense and this rule doesn't address the competency issue so it doesn't permit the prosecution to conduct its own examination. And that conclusion was reaffirmed by a Vermont Supreme Court decision called State v. Sherrow, which held that as a matter of interpreting statutory interpretation. There was no ability of the state to have this psychiatric examination and a competency case, like there was in a sanity case because the essentially the statute did not provide for. So what this does is it adds you'll see the new language in subdivision j does exactly that it does add the circumstance of the competency to the ability of the prosecution to get this reasonable mental examination by a psychiatrist. And then there's a competency finding by the court that the defendant is not incompetent to stand trial so it kind of makes that consistent with the sanity situation in which the prosecution can get its own examination. I should mention here, just so that the committee is aware that that case that I described State v. Sherrow, although it was a did turn on an interpretation of the statute there's also some discussion of constitutional issues there and there's certainly an implication as well that there might be a constitutional argument against this as well and I think is, you know, the committee may remember from last year. I think the, the Attorney General's office and the Defender General's office had different points of view on, on whether or not there was a constitutional issue issue with this language I think it's one of those situations where reasonable issues certainly differ, but I just wanted to point that out to the committee so that it wouldn't be a surprise if, if when a case is brought to challenge this that certainly could happen and ultimately a decision that the court's going to have to make but want to at least note that. Eric. Yeah. Can you remind me what the constitutional issue would have been. I think it was in connection with, with the defendant's due process rights to not necessarily have be subject to these multiple, multiple examinations, arising out of the same case. Okay, thank you. Next we got into the end of my sections here and I think I'll ask, I heard Katie on I could certainly do the other sections but Katie are you here and are you planning to do the next couple or. I'm still here. Sure, I can jump in. Are you able to keep your document up so we can. Yeah, I was thinking I could page through it and just tell me where you want me to go. Okay, perfect. Thank you. So the next two sections first we have a report back to the General Assembly, and then the following section after that is the creation of a task force so first looking at this section five. We have a jointly submitted report coming from the Department of Corrections and Mental Health by November 1 of this coming year, and the report is both an inventory and evaluation of mental health services that are provided by the entity that the Department of Corrections contracts for health care services. And if you look down. Let's see beginning online 17 at list specifically what's going to be in this evaluation, a comparison as to how the type frequency and timeliness of mental health services provided in a correctional setting differ from those available in the community. So the next section of the evaluation is to address how the MOU that was executed by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health impact the services that are provided by the entity with whom do see contracts for health care services. And then the next section section six is the creation of a working group, and that would be created by August 1 of this year by DMH, and it's their paragraph a lists a whole quite a lengthy group of stakeholders. And notice on line six, the language is including as appropriate so including doesn't limit the fact that there might be additional stakeholders that could be part of this working group that are identified by this piece of legislation. And so listed stakeholders include the Department of Corrections, the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs, the Office of the Attorney General the Office of the Defender General, director of health care reform, Department of Buildings and General Services, a representative appointed by Vermont care partners. Oops, could you. Sorry, or could you go back up. Oh, sorry. No, that's okay. Yeah, thank you. Mental health care and Budsman boss from association of hospitals and healthcare, a person with a lived experience of mental illness and any other interested party that's permitted by the commissioner. And then we have the requirements for what this task force is going to be looking at. The task force is going to be identifying gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice system structure opportunities to improve public safety and the coordination of treatment for individuals incompetent to stand trial, or who are adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity, goes on to say that the work group is to review competency restoration models used in other states, and explore models used in other states that balance treatment and public safety risks posed by individuals fun, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and specifically highlights psychiatric security review boards, including the Connecticut model, and guilty, but mentally ill verdicts and criminal cases so those are models that the task force is specifically asked to look at. The second part of the tasks that are listed for this task force are looking at facilities so if you remember when we looked at the group of members one of the people stakeholders highlighted was somebody from bgs. Now, maybe the person from bgs wouldn't weigh in so much on subdivision one when we're looking at policy but in terms of facility. That is somebody who would be appropriate which is why we have language in subsection a when we're looking at the membership that the members are to participate as appropriate. So in terms of the second requirement for the task force to look at there to evaluate various models for the establishment of a state funded forensic treatment facility for individuals found incompetent to stand trial or who are adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity, specifically the evaluation would address the need for a forensic treatment facility. The feasibility or entities most appropriate to operate such a facility. The feasibility and appropriateness of repurposing an existing facility for the purpose of establishing a forensic treatment facility versus the construction of something new in subdivision D the number of beds needed for a forensic treatment facility and the impact that repurposing an existing mental health treatment facility would have on the availability of beds for persons seeking treatment in the community or through civil commitment. And lastly the fiscal impact of constructing or repurposing a forensic treatment facility and the estimated annual operation of costs, considering the IMD institution of mental disease waivers that are available through CMS. This report coming from the task force would be required to be submitted by November 1 of this coming year with findings and recommendations to joint justice oversight. And the report is to include proposed draft legislation if legislation is identified as necessary by the task force. And lastly we have the effective date, July 1 2021. Thank you. Any questions for Katie or Eric. I have one request. And I think it would be for everybody. Peggy or Eric or Katie is there any way to retrieve the information that we had from last year's bill and I'm going to ask for the same thing on the expungement bill. Many of us have files walked away up in the Senate Judiciary Committee room. That we don't have access to. But I don't know how much of it's electronic. It would be helpful I think, particularly for the reporter of the bill and for other members of the committee to have those files is there any way to retrieve them. I mean, Senator Sears, your own personal files. I mean, all the document, all the documents that you looked at last year, you can find on the committee page from last year. You have to go to the 2019 session.  Those are only the documents. Those don't include our notes. I think what I would like is, and especially if I'm going to report this and I don't know if I am or not. But if I am, I want passes, I think you'd be ideal. But I want my file because my whole report from last year is in there, plus all my notes and I, I would love to. I don't know if we could have Mike Farron. Don't do it. Huh. I can have Tony do it. Okay. Go to the drawers and pull out our files. Yeah, I just have to us. Yeah, both, both, both this bill and that's seven. And there's one other that were reintroduced. Yep. So S seven S three. And what's the other one. Well, actually, I have to find the old. I'll talk to the attorneys to get the old numbers. What's the other bill. I think it's the, the ERPO one. That would be minor. Okay. But I can get you those. I can get you those Peggy. The numbers. Yeah. Okay. And then I can ask Tony, I can call him on the phone and tell him where the files are. Okay, that would be great. I think that would be great. I think I'm my recollection. I don't remember who reported the exponent bill last year. It might have been me, but it would be helpful to have that. Yep. Okay. S S five is the other one Peggy. S five this year. This year, right. Okay. But I'll get you the number for last year. Okay. That would be great. Okay. And the other thing that you guys can do if you want at any point. You know, if you want more than just these bills, you could go to the state house, get a box and take what you want. I mean, I know it's not ideal, but. You know, I just something to think about for you guys. I probably won't be at the state house until. At least March. Yeah. I'll tell you that because of our living situation up there, we're trading off weeks to go up. So if anybody wants files. On a week when I go up there, I will go in. I'm like my sport coat back. Okay.   I kept searching for my sport coat and I realized it's in the. But I would do that. I'll do that. If anybody wants something from the state house. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions. Comments. Katie and Eric, thank you very much. Our next witness is. We're not going to get to all the witnesses this morning. And we're going to pick up with this bill next week along with the earlier bill. And I didn't get to apologize to everybody. We're not hearing from pepper Marshall. We're not going to get to all the witnesses next week. Next week on S. Seven and then next week. Remember, we don't get to today. We'll hopefully hear from next week. And I apologize that. About that, but.  For all of us to try to get through. Morning Fox is the next witness. We've got about 20 minutes. I was expected to be the last witness. But we're not going to get to all the witnesses next week. And then following morning, Fox. Oh, I. Okay. I guess that's it. I thought you had somebody else from DMH there, but it is Karen, Karen barbers here too. So if you want both to go together, that's fine. No, I thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Morning Fox deputy commissioner department of mental health. So I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to be here. I'm glad to be here. Morning Fox is with me and we'll kind of tag team through this as, as needed. Also just to help with expediency and such. So I didn't want to just start with. Kind of connecting with some of Eric's comments earlier. And. The fact that this is a. A bill that's a. You know, I'm not sure if you know what I'm talking about. I'm not sure if you know what I'm talking about. As you all remember, we didn't have a lot of testimony over that. And one of the things that's outside of this bill that I just want this committee to be aware of is that. The department of mental health is not very committed to strengthening the forensic system of care. With in Vermont. And to that end, one of the. Goals that we're working on outside of legislation. We're working on the process of contracting with forensic evaluators and contracting with a broader group of forensic evaluators as well. And we're in the process of contracting with some forensic evaluators that are actually. Contract. With numerous states around the country. And bringing them in. And some of their comments during our, our contract negotiations. I will probably bring into some of my testimony as. We'll shed some light on some of the issues that we're bringing up today. One of the earlier questions that were brought up was the need for the department of mental health and receiving the, the reports from the evaluators and. What that purpose was for. Primarily, we have a couple of things. One as, as you see later in the, in the bill. We're going to be able to, we're going to be able to. We're going to be able to have mental health and be able to. Be a part of these hearings going forward. Once competency or sanity. Has, has been determined and that we're going to. A hospitalization hearing, if you will. Where a person is likely or potentially being placed under the care and custody of the commissioner. And so having these reports. And what the mental health needs of an individual may or may not be. So we're better able to speak to those needs at that type of a hearing. So I just wanted to try to address that. Going to section one and the separating of, of the reports. As Eric mentioned, you have both competency and sanity. And it's not just, there's a, there's several reasons why to, to separate these reports. And I'll just kind of focus on one major one, which is that it's, it's really is a national best practice standard that these evaluations are separated. When you're evaluating someone for competency and also their sanity, if a person is, if an evaluator's opinion is that a person is not competent, then it is hard to really imagine, and this is feedback we also receive from professionals, including what this, this organization that we're looking at contracting with that does forensic evaluations throughout the country is that if a person is not competent, then it does not really make clinical sense to be evaluating their sanity and their ability to participate in an evaluation around their sanity at the time of the alleged event. And so that is the primary reason for being able to separate these issues. Yeah, I do appreciate the, the defense attorney's desire, maybe to have that sanity piece to be able to use that as a defense, but as long as the person is, is found incompetent, they're not able to move forward with that defense in, in any way shape or form because the person is not found competent to stand trial. And so there's going to be no further testimony and moving forward in that case until that defendant is found competent. And so separating these reports, once a person has been found competent, then they can, they can fully participate in that evaluation with the evaluator, with the forensic evaluator to determine their sanity at the time of the alleged offense. Moving on to section two. We're also in support of the language here that would provide the provision for legal aid to represent the, the individual who's being charged with alleged, alleged offenses. And we're also in support of the departmental health being entitled to appear and call witnesses at the proceeding previous to that. We have zero ability to be represented in these hearings where the decision is being determined as to not only the dangerousness as Eric Fitzpatrick was mentioning, but also the main crux of these hearings is what is the best location for the treatment of this individual? If they've now been found incompetent, stand trial or been adjudicated is not guilty by reason of insanity. Where, where should their treatment occur within a hospital or in a community, things of that sort. And so, and these people will be under the care and custody of the commissioner of mental health. And so to be able to have our ability to appear and call witnesses at those hearings is extremely important for us. Going down then into section three, the victim notifications. The, we are also has testified last year in support of the 10 day notice the state's attorneys. So that they can provide notification to the victims. And that 10 day notice is that if the department is planning to discharge an individual who was committed under, under this section for these listed of crimes, that if we're looking to discharge them from either a secure facility and that would include a, a secure hospital or a secure residential facility, locked facility, as well as just being discharged completely from the care and custody of the commissioner to notify the state's attorney or attorney general, if they prosecuted the case for victim notification. Earlier in the conversation, the question came up around HIPAA and what information the state's attorneys, what they can do with that information. It's our, it's our feeling that, you know, a state's attorneys are not bound. They're not as, as, as someone like myself as a mental health practitioner bound by HIPAA. So it's protected health information, but a state's attorney or, you know, use Senator Sears or something of that sort are not bound by those, those constraints, not being a healthcare provider, if you will. However, we feel that the language would be, to be tweaked at the intent of our ability to give this information to the state attorney that we intend to discharge someone is for victim notification. And so I think our position would be that it, somehow to be able to tweak that language or somehow clarify that the intent behind this notification to the state's attorney or attorney general's, depending on who prosecuted the case is that the intent for them receiving that information is so that victims can be notified. That's how this came into this, into this, into this piece of legislation was out of concern from state's attorney's victim advocates and others that when people are committed to the care and custody of, of the commissioner and time has gone by that I had heard state's attorneys describe it as it's a black hole and we just don't know when someone is discharged and victims are unaware, et cetera. And so we agree, you know, we think that in these kind of circumstances, being able to have victim notification is a good thing that they should have that right and, and have that understanding because we are protected. Yes, sir. Just so I can be specific about my interest in this question. In a juvenile system, the victims have certain rights to know about the victim, about the perpetrator, but they are not allowed to provide that information to anyone else. So it's against the law for them. It's a violation of the law for them to go and talk to a reporter about how frustrating they are that Johnny Jones, you know, he's in a group home and not walked away at the same time. I think that's the genesis of my question about what can that victim or the public do with that information? I mean, I'll let Karen speak to that a little bit as well, but it might be my understanding that at least as it's currently written, I guess my concern would be is that state's attorneys or the victim could do anything with that information. So is that a good thing? I just that's the, I think a question that we need to resolve at some point. I would say that from, from the department's perspective, no, I don't think that's a good thing.  If they've been adjudicated as not guilty by reason or any, they were never convicted of a crime. And I think as this committee and others know, there's a lot of stigma and bias already within our culture towards individuals with mental illnesses. And I would be concerned that just kind of having a free-for-all with that information could become a big issue. And I think that's the best way to address for the person that that we're possibly discharging. I'm just. Karen Barber, general counsel for the department of mental health. I note a couple of things. One is that this is really limited to the fact that someone is being either discharged from a secure facility or discharged from our custody. It is not providing information about where that person is going. So it's really limited. It's not providing information about where that person is going. It's not providing information about who is a covered entity. And I'm sure Eric can go more into depth about who's a covered entity and what does that mean under federal law? But HS as a whole is a covered entity, which is why HIPAA applies to DMH and more healthcare provider. It wouldn't apply to the state's attorneys. That doesn't necessarily mean that there may not be some other limitations that I may not be familiar with. But I think, you know, as Fox said, there are some other things that are not being talked about. So they were not necessarily adjudicated and found guilty of a crime. So I think we just need to be really careful about what kind of information may or may not get out about folks that. Clearly have. You know, very challenging mental health issues that they were, they were receiving treatment for. And so the department of mental health is, you know, of course, with concern with, you know, protecting folks while also trying to understand if someone may not be any longer in a secure setting. Well, that's part of the impetus of the bill was to provide some victim notification to the fact that somebody was discharged and or is being discharged. But I thank you. I interrupted your testimony. That's okay. And just so continuing on to section four. I just briefly, because I have a feeling we'll probably be talking about this more that. The, the evaluation by psychiatrists. Or other expert when court order examiner reports and is not confident stand trial. We're in support of that. I remember the testimony fairly well from, from last year. And remember defender general Matt Valerio bringing up the, the potential constitutionality issues with that. And, and that's how that may or may not play out going forward. But I think it's an important piece. To really make sure that all, all parties have best available information possible to make, to make an uninformed decision. Going forward. So. I'm going to go to section five, the assessment with corrections.  We already worked very closely with department of corrections. As it mentions in here, we have an MOU. And so being able to discuss. And evaluate how that's, how that is operated and functioned. As well as looking at the, the mental health treatment system, if you will, within department of corrections. More than happy to continue engagement with department of corrections to further evaluate. Their system, what the gaps are and how those could be mitigated. And then finally in section six. Working groups box. Yes. I wonder if the department of. Dale should be involved in this study as well. There are a lot of people who. That are in correctional facilities who. Are borderline at the great least. I think that's a really good point, Senator. And I know Katie had to go to another meeting, but Eric, if you could suggest that maybe they. That. Dale should also be involved in this. Assessment. Yes, absolutely. We'll do. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, no, you're, you're exactly right, Senator. And that, you know, there are folks with either developmental or traumatic brain injuries or other, other things that are within corrections. And so I can understand that, that, that logic. Going into the forensic care working group. I have testified numerous times. In the past few years around. The development of a forensic system of care within our state and the lack and the actually. Reality that we do not have a forensic system of care in our, in our state. And so I. Look forward to being able to participate in, in this working group to identify gaps in the system. I think it's incredibly important for us to look at competency restoration programs. Again, I'll come back to the organization that we are in the process of contracting with that does forensic evaluations with numerous states throughout the country. As part of our discussions with them came up. That. Asked about competency restoration and how that occurs here in our state. We inform them that we don't have a competency restoration program and that they were quite taken back by that. And you know, these are folks who work in numerous states. And I think it's really important for us to be able to balance the treatment needs of individuals as well as the needs of public safety. And so I think we need to not only, you know, look at competency restoration, but we need to look at. How we balance those safety pieces. And so looking at how other states do competency restoration, looking at things like guilty, but mentally ill or. And how that operates or looking at things like psychiatric security review boards. That a handful of states or at least two states. Have have developed and looking at those things to see what will work here in Vermont. And I think that's an important piece. And, you know, so I think that's, that's a. An important thing. And then going into looking at facilities and forensic facilities. Again, that is something I've testified on as far as our need for. And there are numerous models throughout the country. And Vermont is a significant outlier in that we do not have a forensic facility. We do not have a designated place for people who have gone through the criminal justice system and our need of a secure facility. We currently are using our hospitals that, you know, general hospitals or the Vermont psychiatric care hospital for those purposes. And on every day we run the risk of losing our federal funding for the Vermont psychiatric care hospital or things of that sort, because the federal funding mandates us that individuals who are in those hospitals have to be receiving active treatment and cannot be held there solely for the purpose of public safety. And so when we start talking about people who have committed significant crimes and we're trying to balance treatment needs and public safety. We struggle with the public safety part right now. And I think people are aware of different situations that have occurred over the last several years where public safety concerns were raised as a result of discharges and such like that. But it's something that we cannot avoid without looking at how this really functions and what type of facilities we have. Many states have almost every state has a forensic facility. The difference is how they're operated. Some are functions under the department of mental health. Some are functions under department of corrections. Some are jointly operated. And I think it's important for us to look at those different models and come back to the legislature with a report to express here's what we think would work best for the state. I agree. I think there's a lot of. And this takes in Senator Benning's committee on this. And I think the state is, you know, looking for replacements for Woodside's gone. But what happens there? Right. There should be some consideration to that use, but also as it looks for a new women's prison, should there also be, you know, some kind of forensic facilities? Sure. I'm not trying to mix the two together. I think that was interesting. Senator White. You went in speaking about the forensics population. One of the things that I have. Always understood is that we have not very many on any given day. People in that category. And. It always astounds me that we are completely unwilling. understanding is that they have a, at one time anyway, I had thought when I was on institutions and was dealing with the mental health facilities that New Hampshire had a pretty good program. And it always astounds me that we think of that New Hampshire is so far away that we can't put people out of state. But actually New Hampshire is closer to me than Montpelier is. So I just urge us to not look only at what we might have in state, but how we might collaborate with other people. Nope, that's fair, I appreciate that. And in the box if I may, the only other thing I would add is that on the issue of competency and sanity and dividing those reports and why it's clinically appropriate, you did hear some testimony last year from Dr. Robin, who is a board certified forensic psychiatrist on the faculty at Yale and is now the president of Vermont Medical Society. So if there are more questions about kind of that clinical, why that makes sense, I'm sure she'd be happy to come back. I think we're gonna schedule the, some point I'm sure. Let me send this out to the, and I did meet over Zoom with the hospital association and I know they're very interested in this bill. And so others who are interested in testifying on this bill, and I should have said this about the expungement bill, please contact Peggy to be on the agenda. We don't wanna not hear from folks just because we're Zooming. So please contact us on the agenda. And I think there were others who also were interested and had worked on this particularly the forensic working last year. All right. There are other things I know many of us are having to go to a Zoom wonderful we go down the hallway and open the next Zoom invitation. I won't be there, but I'm sure many of you will. And so thank you.