Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee moves to require January feasibility plan for standalone forensic facility, insists it not be operated by DOC
Loading...
Summary
The Senate Institutions Committee reviewed and refined language that would require the secretary of human services to deliver a January feasibility plan for a therapeutic, trauma‑informed forensic facility separate from correctional operations, specifying location, bed counts, clinical services and security arrangements.
The Senate Institutions Committee on Tuesday reviewed a draft amendment that would require the secretary of human services to submit, by January, a feasibility plan for developing and operating a therapeutic forensic facility separate from the Department of Corrections.
The plan language read into the record by Katie McVin of the Office of Legislative Council requires the document to address proposed locations (a standalone site or on DOC grounds but separated by sight and sound), proposed designs that allow clinical separation by need, the number of beds, the entity or entities responsible for operations (explicitly not the Department of Corrections), timelines for constructing or fitting a facility, estimated costs, staffing and clinical services including competency restoration, and whether out‑of‑state placement is an option while Vermont develops an in‑state facility.
"The plan shall address the proposed location of a forensic facility, which shall be independent from a correctional facility," McVin said while summarizing the draft language. The committee discussed whether that independence should be reinforced in multiple places in statute to prevent the secretary from delegating operations to DOC.
A committee member raised concerns about whether the bill’s public‑safety framing—using criminal charge to determine who is placed in the forensic facility—appropriately targets risk. "Why are we basing someone's propensity to cause violence on their charge and not their clinical diagnosis?" the member asked, urging the committee to consider clinical risk assessments alongside charge-based criteria.
Flora, another member, cautioned that existing sentencing laws can create a punitive obligation to detain people with pending life sentences unless the law is changed. "Until the law is changed and it's no longer a life sentence, that sentence needs to be carried out unless it's changed," she said, framing a legal constraint the committee must respect while designing placement policy.
Committee members said the feasibility plan should also include a security plan that defines perimeter and in‑building security when the facility shares grounds with a correctional institution. Members repeatedly emphasized their intent that the facility not be operated by DOC: "I do not" want DOC operating the facility, one member said.
Members also recounted testimony from an upstairs committee raising concerns that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities should not be misplaced into forensic settings. The institutions committee sought assurances and clearer statutory safeguards so that individuals with DD/ID are routed to appropriate services rather than forensic placements.
Staff and legislators agreed to consolidate the proposed changes, strike duplicative reporting language in section 7 to avoid overlap with the January feasibility plan, and return a revised draft to the committee. The feasibility plan will be sent to multiple committees for review as specified in the draft language.
The committee did not take a formal vote during this session; members indicated they expected to continue coordination and hoped to move the bill through the process in coming days.
