There are so many issues with that comment, with all due respect. Let's look at proposed paragraph 34(b), which states:
(b) allowing the inmate to be in the mainstream inmate population would jeopardize the inmate’s safety;
Who's jeopardizing the inmate's safety? It could be because the person has mental issues and finds himself or herself drawn into violent altercations such that he or she does need psychiatric services.
Proposed paragraph 34(a) talks about someone who has acted or intends to act in a manner that jeopardizes safety, and so on. Again, there's no protection that says that in the event that they don't have resources to properly treat an inmate who may meet any and all of these criteria, quite frankly, and who actually requires proper help, an inmate will not be put into an SIU, which is essentially solitary confinement.
There are all kinds of points there that are of concern, and this in no way alleviates that concern. If it did, I'm sure the witnesses would have said as much.