Vermont corrections says remote court hearings are straining staff; seeks more transports or on-site court staff

Commissioner Nick Dimal, commissioner of corrections for the state of Vermont, told a joint meeting of the House Committee on Corrections and the House Committee on Judiciary that remote court proceedings held inside correctional facilities have become a daily, resource-consuming responsibility for DOC staff and are undermining other corrections work.

"There is not a single member of the Department of Corrections whose job or training or education is on running court," Dimal said, describing how caseworkers and correctional officers are now scheduling hearings, moving people around facilities and handling court paperwork because judges are relying on remote connections.

The concern, Dimal said, is threefold: limited physical space and technology inside facilities, reduced staff capacity for DOC’s core duties such as reentry planning and treatment referrals, and uneven scheduling from courts that requests multiple defendants be presented at the same time. "We have finally written a policy saying, these are the only things we will do because we cannot do it," he said, noting DOC set limited time blocks and prioritized certain hearings to protect other operations.

Why it matters: DOC officials told lawmakers the shift is increasing the state’s docket backlog rather than reducing it, and is transferring the burden of conducting justice from the judiciary to corrections. Dimal said remote hearings can leave incarcerated defendants confused about who is on the screen and what is happening, while caseworkers are pressured to explain legal paperwork they are not trained to interpret. That, he said, risks delays and repeat incarcerations when courts set hearings far in the future.

Examples and scope: Dimal said every Vermont correctional facility now hosts multiple daily hearings—"14 criminal courts on a daily basis. We're running 14 family courts on a daily basis. We're running 14 civil courts on a daily basis"—and that all six DOC facilities are affected. He described a Christmas Eve arraignment in St. Albans in which a defendant arrested the night before waited 45 minutes for a judge, then had a misdemeanor DUI matter continued 90 days rather than resolved, a delay he said is likely to produce another warrant and repeat detention.

DOC officials and sheriffs both described transport capacity as a key constraint. Dimal said DOC has historically moved people to court but no longer has the capacity to do so in the same way. He described frequent medical transports (seven simultaneous hospitalizations one Monday) that pull two officers each from facility operations and decrease available staff for court facilitation. He said federal criminal transports operate under an intergovernmental agreement with a capped workload and require two armed officers.

Judiciary response and technology: Tom Zonne, chief superior judge, said the courts and DOC have an ongoing working group to address these pressures and acknowledged that the system must avoid operating in silos. Zonne confirmed the judiciary and stakeholders set up a program funded with CHINS-reform tobacco settlement monies to transport incarcerated parents for termination-of-parental-rights final hearings in order to restore in-person access in those cases.

Zonne also described technology upgrades deployed by the judiciary: larger screens (he said 47-inch units replaced 12-inch devices), modular remote-hearing equipment, and additional "Webex minis" or similar devices placed in facilities so hearings can be mobile. He said a second remote device is now in all but two facilities and that secured internet circuits were installed at most sites to improve reliability. Zonne said the courts are moving from Webex to Zoom and that modular equipment improves field repairs.

Options discussed: Dimal and Zonne both suggested two primary remedies: (1) increase transport capacity so more people attend in-person court and (2) place court staff inside correctional facilities to run judicial procedures there. Dimal said DOC would provide security and clearances if the judiciary sent staff; Zonne said embedding court employees would require new classifications, recruitment and union/contract work and that courts have instead explored having court staff call in to complete paperwork at set times.

Budget and capacity: Dimal said the DOC general fund budget is about $230,000,000 and that roughly 2% of the budget is other funding. He said staffing and sickness in the incarcerated population (more hospitalizations than five years ago) have reduced available capacity. Zonne said CHINS-reform tobacco settlement funds were used to pay for certain transports and that the courts have standing orders listing which hearing types are generally in person and which are permitted remotely, though judges may make case-by-case decisions.

Next steps: Committee members pressed for additional detail on how many transport deputies are needed and how embedding judiciary staff would work under existing contracts; several lawmakers asked the defender general to weigh in on attorney availability for remote hearings. Both Dimal and Zonne said the existing working groups continue to meet and that they would provide additional examples and data requested by the committee.

Dimal and Zonne agreed that remote hearings have a role in reducing travel burdens when used appropriately, but that current scheduling, technology limits and staffing shortages are creating systemic strain. "If we are going to, within our facilities, do another branch of government's function, then we would welcome them to provide the staff and resources that's needed to do that," Dimal said, and Zonne said the judiciary will continue pursuing technology and scheduling adjustments while the legislature considers resources for transport or staffing adjustments.