Committee reviews draft letting Department of Corrections supervise interim forensic restoration program for three years

Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council walked the Policy Judiciary Committee through draft 3.1 of the amendment to S193, explaining the proposal would place the Department of Corrections (DOC) in a supervisory role for an interim forensic and competency restoration program while the legislature and agencies prepare a permanent facility.

"The proposal is that... the Department of Corrections would be in collaboration with the respective departments within the Agency of Human Services," Fitzpatrick said, noting that the interim arrangement would run for roughly three years and is intended to be implemented through emergency rulemaking.

The amendment sets an explicit sunset: the interim provisions would expire on July 1, 2029, at which point the version of the statute with a more-limited DOC role would come into effect. Fitzpatrick emphasized the two-tier structure is deliberate: emergency rules to operate an interim program while a permanent facility and permanent rules are developed.

Committee members drew attention to several operational details embedded in the draft. Among them: the Agency of Human Services medical director is identified as the point person to monitor compliance and to notify the court if a supervised person is noncompliant and must be returned to the facility. Fitzpatrick summarized that provision as assigning responsibility to the medical director, "in consultation with the commissioners," to ensure the court receives timely notice and due-process hearings when re-confinement is needed.

The committee also debated statutory definitions. Several members supported striking the phrase "suitable clinical setting" from the forensic-facility definition, saying the language was vague and that the statutory definition already covers the program’s clinical functions. Fitzpatrick said removing the phrase would make the definition read instead as a locked, secure facility providing restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment and care of qualifying persons.

Members pressed staff about the terminology used in the draft: whether to label the interim arrangement a "program" or an "interim forensic facility." Some members worried that appropriations language referring explicitly to a physical facility could create confusion; others said "facility" better reflected the secure, locked setting described in the definitions. Fitzpatrick and committee members agreed staff would consult appropriations counsel and consider a substitute to clarify permanent versus interim references.

Fitzpatrick also described new emergency-rule language added to the draft that would require the secretary, in consultation with involved departments, to adopt emergency rules by a specified date so the interim program can operate pending the permanent facility. The provisions include a clause saying the emergency-rule standard is deemed met for this purpose (for example, on public-safety grounds), and that the emergency rules would remain in effect for the three-year interim rather than the more common 180-day period.

Committee members asked staff to produce a new draft incorporating the clarifications discussed and to consult with appropriations and other offices as needed before returning to the committee.

Next steps: staff will prepare a revised draft reflecting the group's direction and return it to the committee for further consideration.