The Offender Standards Subcommittee on Wednesday appointed Merit LaJoy as co-chair and advanced two recommendations to the larger council dealing with how defendant treatment is verified in family violence matters.

Joe Gituno, director of family services for the Connecticut Judicial Branch, proposed LaJoy, the complaint officer for the Office of the Victim Advocate, to replace Shauna Harrington as co-chair. The committee seconded the nomination and approved it by voice vote; no opposition was recorded.

The panel's primary substantive work during the meeting reviewed two items the subcommittee had forwarded to the larger council. The first recommends a standardized, non‑judicial cover sheet and guidance that defendants and treatment providers would complete to document participation in programs that may be considered in prosecutors' disposition decisions for family violence cases. Gituno and LaJoy said they drafted a cover sheet and a short package that highlights three core elements drawn from the offender standards so prosecutors can determine whether a provider’s program aligns with expected interventions.

Gail Hardy, the chief state's attorney's designee, told the subcommittee that the Division of Criminal Justice retains prosecutorial discretion and prefers that any process for documenting treatment be housed as policy and procedure within the Division rather than as a Judicial Branch form. "Maybe favorable disposition is based on something other than completion of an offender program," Hardy said, noting examples such as insufficient evidence or a victim who is no longer cooperating.

Hardy said the Division’s policy director, Katie Behr, is drafting language that will reflect the Division’s role in deciding whether program completion is the basis for a favorable disposition. The subcommittee discussed using the draft cover sheet as guidance the Division could adopt or adapt; members emphasized the package is intended to remove ambiguity for treatment providers and prosecutors about expectations under the offender standards.

The committee also reviewed a second recommendation: support for a pretrial supervised diversion program for people charged with family violence offenses. Shauna Harrington, director of legal advocacy at PCAB, said the subcommittee circulated an updated statutory draft to Senator Paul R. ("Senator Flexer" as referenced in the meeting transcript) through Liza (last name not specified in the transcript) and reported that the public defender office’s concerns had been addressed in the updated language. Gituno noted the proposed language is likely to be included in the larger court‑operations bill, which often functions as a catchall vehicle for procedural changes.

Members spent much of the meeting discussing quality assurance for providers on the approved list of offender‑intervention programs. Gituno led a wide-ranging discussion of possible approaches — from simple consumer feedback surveys to periodic site visits or file reviews — and acknowledged resource limits would constrain any formal auditing program. Members raised concerns about online programs, with at least one participant saying online programs should be prohibited due to lack of quality control.

The subcommittee also discussed programming for incarcerated individuals and whether offerings inside Department of Correction facilities match community curricula. Participants said DOC runs domestic‑violence programming but that in‑custody completion does not always translate to community credit. Members agreed to invite DOC program services to a future meeting to describe their offerings.

On administrative items, the subcommittee approved minutes from its prior meeting by voice vote; two members said they would abstain because they were not present at the earlier meeting. Gituno said he and another member (Mary—surname not specified) will meet before the next subcommittee meeting to prioritize the group's forthcoming work, especially quality assurance steps and any follow‑up once the Division of Criminal Justice publishes its policy. The subcommittee scheduled its next meeting as a fully virtual session on the 19th, and the larger council meeting for the 26th will be hybrid.

The subcommittee did not adopt any new binding statewide standards or auditing protocol at this meeting; members directed staff and collaborating agency representatives to draft materials and bring them back for further review.

Ending: The meeting adjourned after members agreed on next steps and scheduling; no additional formal votes were taken.