The Corrections Monitoring Commission, established in 2022 after allegations of sexual misconduct in Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility came to light, quietly expired on July 1 without fulfilling its mandate.
In 2020, the Vermont Agency of Human Services contracted the law firm Downs Rachlin Martin to conduct an investigation into sexual misconduct at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility — the only women’s prison in Vermont — following a series of stories by Seven Days detailing allegations of sexual misconduct, retaliation and drug use at the facility.
The articles described instances where Department of Corrections employees preyed on current and former incarcerated women, female officers endured sexual harassment, and those who raised concerns were disregarded or faced retaliation.
As a result of the investigation, the law firm released a report that addressed the shortcomings of the Department of Corrections and provided a series of recommendations to address sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. One of the recommendations was to create a monitoring committee to oversee reporting of sexual misconduct, ensure implementation of anti-retaliation policies and improve transparency and accountability.
While the Department of Corrections has taken some steps by creating an independent hotline for reporting sexual misconduct and expanding resources related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the Corrections Monitoring Commission was the primary independent body specifically tasked with overseeing the department’s handling of sexual misconduct.
The Vermont Legislature established the commission in January 2022, requiring its compositon of eight members: a former judge, a retired attorney, a former corrections officer, two formerly incarcerated individuals, the executive director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence or a designee, a former management-level employee of the Department of Corrections, and an individual with knowledge and experience in the correctional system. None of the members could be actively employed by the Department of Corrections.
In the first few months, the group developed a governance document and a work plan, but quickly their work started slowing down.
The Corrections Monitoring Commission was supposed to provide advice to the commissioner of corrections in monitoring reporting of sexual misconduct, implementing policies related to misconduct and anti-retaliation, and reviewing disciplinary actions.
The commission was also tasked with drafting annual reports that would provide insights on the work of the Department of Corrections, including the way it handled allegations of sexual misconduct and complaints of retaliation; compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act; maintenance of an independent hotline to the State Police for the women at the facility; adhereance to anti-retaliation policies; and investigations of employee misconduct, contraband, threats to personal safety and more.
But the reports were never produced, according to members of the commission, and the group struggled to understand how to carry out the work mandated by the bill.
“The commission had a lot of difficulty getting a quorum together to actually hold meetings, so that was really a major obstacle in the success of the commission,” said Timothy Burgess, the group’s co-chair, an advocate for incarcerated people and himself formerly incarcerated.
In April 2024 testimony to the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, Karen Tronsgard-Scott, executive director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and Ashley Messier, co-chair of the commission, said some members of the commission resigned in the first months, and the appointing bodies responsible for assigning new members never replaced them. Other members simply stopped attending the meetings.
With scarce attendance, the group couldn’t reach the quorum necessary to continue their work, so by June 2023, they had stopped meeting altogether.
The commission faced a number of structural difficulties, Tronsgard-Scott said. She pointed to the broad scope of the bill, the fact that members of the commission didn’t have enough experience in a monitoring capacity and the lack of legal counsel or resources.
Another challenge, according to Burgess, was collaboration and information exchange with the Department of Corrections. Burgess said more interaction with the department would have helped identify problems and draft the reports.
“The Department of Corrections has really implemented systems to address the issues that were the reason for the commission. However, there is no insight outside of the Department of Corrections to oversee what the implementation is, how effective it is, etcetera,” Burgess said.
Isaac Dayno, executive director of policy at the Department of Corrections, said the department was quite transparent with the commission but couldn’t share confidential information on personnel issues.
“DOC is actually not involved with personnel investigations,” he said. Under a policy within the Agency of Administration, all complaints of employee misconduct have to be immediately reported to the Department of Human Resources.
Changes and next steps
After the sexual misconduct allegations emerged in 2019, the Department of Corrections implemented some of the recommendations of the Downs Rachlin Martin report, including creating and maintaining an independent hotline that women in the Chittenden Regional Facility could use to report such incidents to the state police.
The bill that established the Corrections Monitoring Commission also created the Corrections Investigative Unit within the department to ensure compliance with federal law and conduct internal investigations on incidents such as deaths, escapes, contraband, threats and safety issues, and allegations of violations of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act.
“The legislature authorized the program, but they didn’t appropriate any funding for it or positions for it, so it took a little bit of time for the department to have to do that work on its own,” Dayno said.
The unit, composed of a director of investigations and two investigators, has been operational for about a year and does not carry out misconduct investigations, according to its website.
In April 2024, Burgess, the Corrections Monitoring Commission co-chair, submitted testimony to the Legislature asking to remove the sunset and extend the duration of the Corrections Monitoring Commission for five more years. Tronsgard-Scott and Messier also proposed to modify the commission’s mandate to state more clearly its purpose and authority and ensure the involvement of the Department of Corrections. But the topic wasn’t further discussed in the Legislature, and the commission expired.
“We had a lot of brand new people in the Legislature as a whole,” said state Rep. Alice Emmons, D-Windsor, chair of the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions. As the members of the House committee changed in the last legislative session, they had to familiarize themselves with the new work and the Department of Corrections, she explained.
“We looked to see if we had any reports given to us this year, and we couldn’t find anything,” Emmons said. “And that’s not to say that we couldn’t start conversations about it come next session.”
State Rep. Eric Maguire, R-Rutland, a former member of the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, also expressed interest in making a proposal to the Legislature to revive the commission.
“Even though it’s sunsetting, I believe there’s still an opportunity to get this work back into place,” Maguire said.
“The commission would need a better formation to work effectively,” Burgess said. “More exchange of information on what the department sees as problems, more information from the commissioners and interaction with the commissioners on creating the reports. Those things were not done.”
