Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Peer Support Confidentiality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates bill to extend confidentiality to peer support for first responders
Summary
Lawmakers and stakeholders sparred over LD 882, which would extend public‑records confidentiality to trained peer‑support personnel; judiciary recommended keeping mandatory disclosure for criminal admissions and restoring a statistical‑data carve‑out. The committee tabled the bill for further language work.
Lawmakers and first‑responder advocates debated LD 882 on June 10, a bill that would broaden statutory confidentiality for communications with critical incident stress management (CISM) teams to include trained peer‑support personnel.
The bill’s analyst, known in committee as Will, said the bill would expand existing Title 25 protections so that trained peer supporters — not just licensed mental‑health clinicians — could fall under public‑records exemptions. Will summarized the judiciary committee’s recommendation to reintegrate a provision allowing access to de‑identified statistical data while preserving mandatory disclosures for a narrow set of circumstances, including when a person seeking help admits to committing a crime, when disclosure is required by law (for example mandated‑reporting statutes), or when there is an imminent danger to self or others.
That mandatory‑disclosure carve‑out drew particular attention. “I encourage the committee to consider how this occurs practically,” said Joe Keller, chief executive officer of Life Flight Maine, who advised adding a verbal or written warning so peers entering a session know what is and is not protected. “Nobody practically is going to go into a peer‑support structured session and say, ‘Hey, I committed a crime.’”
Sgt. Ryan Close of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, who has worked in peer support for about a decade, told the committee peer support is distinct from licensed clinical counseling and emphasized that peer teams often act as a warm hand‑off to clinical care. Close also said that law‑enforcement members are mandated reporters under department policies and that “if somebody tells us that they committed a crime, we’re mandated reporters.”
Supporters of the bill stressed the risk of erecting barriers to seeking help. “If we take away that confidentiality, people aren’t going to seek peer support,” said a committee stakeholder, warning that public disclosure of mental‑health information could deter officers from using lifesaving resources.
After extended questioning about who would qualify as a protected peer supporter and what training standards should apply, Representative Tavis Hassenfoss moved to table the confidentiality provision to allow the committee time to consider narrower alternatives, including limiting expanded protections to civil matters only or preserving the judiciary’s middle‑ground approach. The chair announced that a majority favored tabling the measure for further language work.
Next steps: the committee will draft and circulate revised language that preserves access to de‑identified data while clarifying the scope of confidentiality for peer‑support members, training standards, and the treatment of admissions of criminal conduct.
