House Judiciary continues S193 review as witnesses urge keeping Corrections involved in forensic-facility planning

The House Judiciary Committee on May 6 continued its review of S193, draft 4.1, and heard testimony pressing lawmakers to keep the Department of Corrections involved in planning for a proposed forensic facility.

"For the record, K McMatis, Department of Attorneys and Sheriffs," McMatis said as she began testimony, later urging the panel to treat the work carefully as it approaches a finish. McMatis told members excluding DOC entirely would be a "mistake," saying DOC can contribute probation and parole expertise, security capabilities and practical contracting power — for example, for electronic monitoring — that other departments may not currently have.

The recommendation matters because S193 sets out a narrow initial population and a framework for competency-restoration services outside traditional carceral settings. McMatis and several committee members emphasized they supported starting small and pragmatic while preserving options to expand later if a feasibility plan shows broader needs.

McMatis pointed to several drafting and procedural items she wanted corrected or clarified in the bill text, including language about which official serves as clinical facility director, the frequency and conditions for court review of continued-treatment orders, and the interplay of time-based review periods (six months, three years, five years) with medical-director determinations. She also repeatedly urged that any feasibility plan directed to the committee include DOC as an option for roles such as perimeter security or supervision, rather than removing DOC from consideration entirely.

Representatives on the committee asked whether models in other states could guide Vermont’s approach. A Representative noted that Colorado, Washington and Pennsylvania have outpatient and inpatient models worth examining; McMatis and others encouraged learning from national resources, including court-focused organizations referenced in testimony.

Throughout the hearing, witnesses and committee members contrasted aspirational program goals with what they said could be implemented now. McMatis argued the bill as drafted aims for a pragmatic, near-term solution by narrowing the eligible population and that a feasibility plan should present multiple cost-and-capacity options rather than precluding partners such as DOC.

The committee did not take a formal vote. The chair recessed the committee until the following day at 9 a.m., noting that related bill H606 had been delayed elsewhere and that additional witnesses and recommendations from other committees will be reconciled with S193’s current draft.

Next procedural steps: the Judiciary Committee will continue S193 work in follow-up sessions, receive feasibility recommendations from sister committees and review technical cleanups to the statutory language.