 Good morning. This is House and Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on H317, an act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics Advisory Panel. There is a companion bill in the Senate, S108, but through agreement with Representative Grad and myself, we're dealing with the House bill at H317. This all has been going on for quite a while. One of the frustrations, every time we try to deal with something as the matter of what it is, it's in the criminal justice system. We lack statistics. We lack information. We don't have that. The Justice Oversight Committee and the Racial, I always get it wrong. HATON's group, he's the chair of that, but they have done a lot of study. We've done a lot of study on what we should do, and this is actually presenting today a plan forward to have good statistics in Vermont that we can rely on to make good policy choices. When you're making policy choices without statistical information to back you up, you often make the wrong choice. This will also help us in making sure that different agencies take government follow, as well as local government follow what we present and be able to understand. That's basically the impetus for the bill. I welcome Representative Grad to make some comments before we hear from Eric. Thank you. I think Senator Sears really covered it all, and I really appreciate Senator Judiciary joining us today, so we can all start off on the same page as well as our witnesses. This is a very important bill, very important concept, really, in terms of moving forward in our criminal justice work. With that, should we turn it over to legislative counsel Eric Fitzpatrick to do a walkthrough? Does that work? I did forget to mention one thing, if you don't mind, Representative Grad. When the Justice Reinvestment Group from the Council of State Governments Justice Center were in Vermont trying to make recommendations regarding racial disparities in Vermont's criminal justice system, they were unable to, in a large way because of the lack of adequate statistics, and they're a data driven organization that relies on statistics. I think that was one of the parts of the bill of the effort on Justice Reinvestment 2 that wasn't as successful as it might otherwise have been because of our lack of statistics. Great. Thank you. Eric. Eric, welcome. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here to walk the committee through H317. As Senator Sears mentioned, there's a Senate companion bill as well as 108. Both of them identical introduced in both bodies, but they're both entitled, an act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics advisory panel. As you can tell from the title of the bills, essentially what's being done here is the creation of two different entities that are charged with collecting and analyzing data that's, I'm going to quote from the language of the bill now, related to systemic racial bias and disparities within the criminal and juvenile justice systems. So it creates two different entities that are going to be involved with that project that were just mentioned. And as a moment or two of background before we actually look at the language, it's helpful to know that this proposal is coming out of, started really with Act 148, the Justice Reinvestment Act because it was in that act that you folks, the legislature charged the racial disparities in criminal and juvenile justice systems advisory panel with taking a look at this issue with a number of other parties involved also, of course, but analyzing the racial disparities in the criminal justice systems issue. And out of that study came a report. And the RDAB report to the Joint Justice Oversight Committee last year, toward the end of last year. And within that report is the recommendation for the creation of an independent entity to study this issue of racial bias in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. And that recommendation forms the basis of the legislation you're looking at today. And that obviously, there's a lot of details within that. And very many of the details are also reflected in the bill for sure. But in the big picture, you know, it's that recommendation of the establishment of an independent entity to look at racial bias in the criminal and juvenile justice systems that came out of the came out of RDAB's report to Justice Oversight, that forms the basis of age 317 and S108. So that's kind of a moment about where this all came from. And the entity that the entities, I should say, that were as a concept recommended in the report are reflected in the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Advisory Panel that we're going to look at in just a moment. I also want to mention, though, that conceptually there's also some history of these sorts of panels and these sorts of biases being established in Connecticut specifically. And that Connecticut model was mentioned in RDAB's report and was also used as I was drafting it as a basis for where I was pulling language from and sort of the concept of how this was all coming together. So I think it's helpful to know that as well. And I think that I think, in fact, the Connecticut model, and I'm sure the chair at time will talk more about this, but was specifically referred to in some detail in the RDAB report. And obviously that also was able to serve as a basis for the legislation, the bills that you're looking at now. And the concept there you'll see that's reflected that's both in Connecticut and in the bill is that you have these two different entities. You have one entity, the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics, that's really an IT entity. You know, these these those are IT professionals who are data analysts and collection professionals. And that entity really collects, organizes, assimilates the data on on racial disparities. Whereas the other entity that works with and oversees the Bureau is the is the advisory panel. And then they're more of a policy entity. So you kind of have a data collection, data analysis entity that's really crunching all these numbers. And you have another body that works with them, oversees them, advises them, and also connects to the legislature. You know, important that you have a sort of a voice with the legislature sort of analyzes that data that the Bureau is creating and can come up with recommendations for where the shortcomings are, where the where improvements need to be made, what legislation might be needed, for example, and they they can connect with the legislature. And in fact, the legislation will see requires them to report to the legislature every year. I think the at least the concept there is that there will be sort of this this, you know, this ongoing communication. So that as the data is collected and analyzed, the recommendations can be made and can be sort of a circle of communication between the legislature and the bodies that are working in that area. So one last sort of background common as well before that the language I also wanted to mention the fact that sort of where these entities are placed in statute is also something to sort of keep in mind, because that was also an issue of discussion. You'll see that the way that the way the bill is now these entities are placed in the executive branch, specifically in the in the agency of administration, sort of where to house this is certainly a policy decision for you. I think that the two main possibilities, not that there aren't others, but the two main possibilities that were being discussed. So we're sort of on the one hand, it could be a completely independent entity, right, not housed in any existing government office, but could be completely independent, say, like the victims compensation board, something like that, there's plenty of models out there for that as well. Or on the other hand, could be housed within an existing branch of government the way the bill does. And there's, you know, positive and negative to both approaches. On the one hand, full independence, you have the sort of idea that wouldn't be any potential impact or influence by existing, existing branches of government. On the other hand, you don't have really administrative structure in place to help out with the way the committee's functions are meant to be. So it's really a discussion for the committees to have. And it's not that there's a wrong answer. But the one at least for purposes of getting the discussion started was to put it in the administration, which makes some sense. I'm just going to pull up one document here to let you guys see that. Also, I think it's helpful to look at the existing chapter where this goes in. I'm just going to make sure that I'm a co-host, which I am. Thank you very much to whoever did that, Evan or Peggy. And we're just going to see for a moment, Chapter 68 of Title III, which is where this is proposed to go, which is where the Executive Director of Racial Equity and the Racial Equity Advisory Panel exist currently. So you'll see that the, here it is right here. So this is Chapter 68 of Title III, which is, you'll see it's the, this entire chapter is called the Executive Director of Racial Equity. But as well, the position is created, which is works with overseen by, advised by the Racial Equity Advisory Panel, and both of them are already there in Chapter 68 of Title III. So it made some sense to add the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics to this existing provision of law. And you'll see right there, if we turn to the bill for a moment, you'll see what that does, is it just adds, it breaks up the existing Chapter 68 adds a new retitles the Racial Equity as sub Chapter 1, and then adds a new sub Chapter 2, which would be Racial Justice Statistics. So there is some logical sense to having it there. But as I say, as a sort of policy resource matter, that's certainly open for the committees to discuss. But that is the reasoning as to why, at least as to get the discussion started, the Bureau was housed. In this location, you'll see, in fact, when we look at the language that the language of the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics Advisory Panel is modeled very closely to to the language that's in this exact existing chapter on the Racial Equity Advisory Panel, very similar to the roles are sort of similar in that they interact with, with another body in a similar sort of way. So having said that, I could, since we have the language up on the screen, I could start right in with the walkthrough, but I'm going to hold off pause for a moment to see if the chairs want to pause for questions before we start that, or whether whether you're put your preferences for how to proceed next. Senator Sears. I was muted and I, I'm fine with going forward. I just wanted to mention Senator Benning is not here this morning. He's been delayed by a court hearing. Unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, his job sometimes is a defense attorney requires him to be. Great. Thank you. Great. Go ahead. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Senator Sears. All right. So let's move right into the language then. So I know the committee has a lot of witnesses scheduled to come up to us. I'll try and move pretty briskly. But as always, I can't see hands. So if anyone has a question, please, please interrupt and stop me anytime. Happy to, happy to pause whenever it can make sense. So as I just mentioned, the, the proposal is to establish the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the advisory panel in Chapter 68 of Title III, where the Executive Director of Racial Equity is currently this Bureau, as I also mentioned at the beginning, remember the Bureau is the information technology arm of this process. This is the, this is the entity that collects, analyzes the data. So, and you'll see positions are created for that later on at the end of the bill. So the initial language states right off at the beginning that it creates this Bureau within the executive branch, as I mentioned, the Agency of Administration specifically. It's a charge is in lines four and five, collect and analyze data related to systemic racial bias and disparities within the criminal and juvenile justice system. So it's charges laid out very clearly. The Bureau is also told to work collaboratively with and have the assistance of so other state agencies, all state and local agencies are instructed to work with the Bureau for purposes of collecting this data. And you'll see that in quite great detail here, the types of data, and that's what subjects and C is now to deal with next. So now the Bureau is established. Now it's charged with collecting data. And so the obvious question is well, what data? And so that's, you know, identified next. And this goes into quite a lot of detail. This, these recommendations came out of the hard apps report that I mentioned that the report went through the data that it felt would be useful in quite a lot of detail. So that formed the basis or some of this, the data that's used in the Connecticut statute also went into the selection of this data. Again, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it also went into the selection of this data. Again, it's, it's an initial take on it. So obviously changes, additions, subtractions, whatever committees, preferences are can be made. But for the starting, starting the discussion, it's quite detailed and quite specific and sort of goes through the entire juvenile and criminal justice processes. That's the attempt anyway, from the beginning to the end, collect all the data related to and again, look at lines 10 and 11, the data related to systemic racial bias and disparities within, in this case, the juvenile justice system. So data related to that, in connection with, and just moving right through this list. The first one, it's demographic data involving offenders, parents or guardians of offenders. Remember, we're in the juvenile justice system. So that's why the parents were guardians. Pieces here are included. Attorneys, judges, GALs, DCF, law enforcement officers, witnesses demographic data about all those actors in the system. Number two, you start at the beginning, again, sort of the chronological process of, of the juvenile justice system. So the first sort of point in the, on the chronology is the interaction between the offender and whoever they might be interacting with. So you see, that's what this talks about. Encounters with law enforcement officers, DCF staff, mandatory reporters, school staff, school resource officers, any person who, you know, might be involved in that initial encounter. And that data would, it would specifically include information about where the encounter happened, the location, who, with whom the encounter occurred, whether that initial encounter resulted in release, citation, custodial arrest, basis for initial arrests, the level and length of any detention prior to the court appearance, any reports by mandated reporters, any data regarding particular schools and counties with justice involved youth as well. So remember that's pre, pre-charge. Now you have, you move on to any post-charge diversion and community justice program, pre and post, I should say. So this is really related to diversion community justice systems and data about, about those programs, including referral rates and who, who it is, which entity made the referral, acceptance and rejection data, length of the program, completion, failure rates, type location and outcomes for any risk assessment tools used. That was number three, by the way. So moving on to further down the, the timeline of the proceeding, next you get to the delinquency petition. So a petition is filed, data on that, including initial and amended charges, challenges to the charges, pre-marriage dispositions. You got data on defense counsel, including counsel's legal experience and the offenders access to an assignment of defense counsel during all stages. You got data regarding detention and other custodial statuses. So you've got pre-trial detention, release, discharge from custody, any conditions of release, level place and duration of detentions, custody reviews, status changes, number of placement changes. So moving forward in the proceeding, you know, we're now past the filing of the petition. What about the agreement data that also is here, including offers made, total numbers of agreements entered into elements of final agreements. Disposition data, so juvenile case disposition data, length of time until the final disposition, minimum maximum sentences, location and level, fines fees, restitution, probation terms and conditions, any other disposition alternatives. And lastly, data regarding any sanctions and disciplinary actions against juvenile justice system participants. So data about other actors within the system to be available, made available. Eric, can I just break in there on line five, page four, minimum and maximum sentences? Do we don't have that in the juvenile system? Yes, that's a good point. That might have been left over from the, that was probably language that inadvertently carried over from the adult system language. So it should be, you're right, A, the length and time of the disposition should be there, but it should be, should be a reference to dis, final dispositions, not sentences. The length of time and custody or those types of information. Yes. Thank you for that. I'm just noting that real quick here, but yeah, I think that probably was an inadvertent. There also wouldn't be fines and fees. Unless they're motor vehicle offenses. Right. The fines and fees. Yep. There's a whole, I mean, that section probably needs some work to update for the juvenile justice system. Also curious about where the youth offenders come in. Yes, I think you're absolutely right. That whole subdivision be there. I think was just came over from the adult section. So that needs to be reworked. Thanks for catching that. Okay. So speaking of the adult criminal justice system, that's what you'll see next. The language here will be very similar to what you just looked at. So it's really just very parallel on, in many cases, identical data regarding the adult criminal justice system and the racial bias and disparities within that system. That you just looked at with respect to the juvenile justice system. So again, pause me if I go too quickly, but since we just looked at most of this once, I won't hesitate too much as it would go through. But again, the demographic data regarding all the participants and parties within the system is present. First data regarding pre-charge, you know, again, it's similar to the initial encounter that led to the charge with whomever it may be custodial arrest, length of pre-arrayment detentions, diversion and community justice program data. Again, also mentioned in the juvenile sentence context rather, including cases eligible, number of cases referred, and acceptance and completion rates. Charging data, also similar circumstances around the charges, including initial and amended charges filed, challenges, pre-trial dispositions, data about defense counsel, including counsel's legal experience and offenders access to and assignment of defense counsel. Again, diversion and treatment program data, which we just looked at as well, referral rates, who made the referral acceptance and rejection data about that. This is all identical to what you just saw in the juvenile language, length and completion, failure rates, outcomes, pre-trial detention release, including conditions of release, bail amounts, defendants held without bail, bail reviews. This is all unique to the adult system, obviously. Changes to pre-trial detention status, conditions of release, revocation of bail, conditions of release. Plea agreement data, offers agreements centered into and elements of final agreements. Data about sentencing, length of time until final sentences. And this is actually a C subdivision B. That's the language that we just saw that was inadvertently included in the juvenile section. This is irrelevant to the adult section, not the juvenile one, which is minimum and maximum sentences, location and level of detention, spines, these restitution, probation terms and conditions, other disposition alternatives. And lastly, the same language you saw above about any sanctions and disciplinary actions that are publicly available against juvenile justice system persistence. Again, there's a typo. So that 10 should be in line, a line eight, there should be, there's a straight juvenile word, word, juvenile. So any info about sanctions and disciplinary actions would come in under paragraph 10. So we just went through all the data that needs to be collected, right? So then the next question is, all right, well, what happens to this data? And that's what is discussed next and requires a bureau to analyze essentially all of this data. And towards what ends to see a couple of different tasks that the committee is instructed to do with respect to this data. First of all, identify the stages of the criminal and juvenile justice systems at which racial bias and disparities are most likely to occur. So again, through this data that it's collected, hopefully it will be able to identify where the disparities are most likely to happen. And also significantly organize and sympathize, synthesize the data in a cohesive and logical manner so that it can be presented and understood again. So these are information technology specialists who are, who are, have been hired under the bell and charged with assimilating all this data. But the idea here is to, you know, be able to organize and present it in a way so that can be understood by, by any other actor or reader who, to whom it's presented. So. Sorry. If I, if I could just interrupt quickly. Eric on the bureau shall subdivision one. It says develop a system to standardize the data collected. Does that mean they develop a system that will be pushed out to the various law enforcement agencies. To use and collecting it, or does that mean that they will create a system to standardize data given to them in various forms. In other words, do they, do they have the power to, to develop a system that will be adopted statewide. By the law enforcement agencies. I think they have the power to develop that system and in fact are instructed down below to develop a standardization system as to how it's adopted. I'm just moving ahead here because there's a little bit that kind of addresses your question a bit, Senator Baruch. I don't think there's a requirement. That other entities adopt their system, but you'll see in subdivision two and three that it is. It's put out there. In subdivision three, for example, there's a recommendation that, that the panel comes up with, to recommend evidence based practices and standards for collection and retention. Subdivision two proposing methods to permit sharing and communication between state and local agencies. So I think that the system of standardization. That's talked about above is also could pretend to be part of what they recommend, but, but no, I think if I understood your question right, it's not a requirement. It wouldn't be sort of here's, here's what other state agencies have to do. It's more of a recommendation that they, that other entities could adopt. Okay, because I just wanted to flag that because that seems, that's the troublesome point. I come at it also from the agency of education and trying to standardize data around districts. And it's, it's participation in a standardized data plan. That's the, the failing statewide. So it seems like one way or the other. If we're going to ask for this sort of robust data collection. It should be uniform from the get go. Otherwise we're. We're hamstringing ourselves, it seems. Anyway, just wanted to put that out there. May I comment on that? Thank you. So I think that from the law enforcement perspective that they're already starting to standardize how they collect the data. And most of the system, most of them are already using the same system now, the same reporting system. So I think that that this goes to hand in glove with, with their attempts to already be standardizing the. What they collect and how they reported. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Not seeing any other hands and nobody's jumping in. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Eric. So moving on from what, what the. What the bureau does with the data. The data, you also see that the bureau is required to maintain a public facing websites as a transparency subsection basically. So you have a. Ability for the public to see what the bureau has been doing. And they have a website, a dashboard that specifically maximizes the bureau's transparency. And assures the ability of the public and historically impacted communities to review and understand the data. And that is the state has been collected and also it's being made public so that there's an ability of the public to see it and understand it. Beyond that, there's some reporting requirements. You see that's an annual, annual reporting requirements. So on December 15th. Starting this year and every month thereafter, the bureau has to report to the panel. So we haven't gotten to the panel yet, but there's a requirement that the bureau is going to remember that the bureau has a policy. Policy. Charged arm of this, the structure. And so the bureau collects the data. And synthesize it and provides this analysis and recommendations to the panel every year. And then as well, January 15th of the, of the year after the bureau reports that same data analysis recommendations. To the judiciary committees and the government operations committees. And you'll see similar reporting requirements for the advisory panel as well. Which I'll pause for a moment. Just to see if there's any questions before we talk about the panel. So again, as I mentioned, the panel is the more the policy oriented body within the structure. Specifically has the administrative legal and technical support of the agency administration. And so the bureau has five members and you'll see there that actually I'll just take a moment. To look back at the racial equity advisory panels. I mentioned. The structure here is very, very similar. To the existing racial. Equity advisory panel, which works with. The director executive director of racial equity. And you'll see that for example, A through E, the members, and of the members who does, who makes the appointments, how they. How their terms are going to be staggered. All of that is just exactly the same as the existing practice for the racial. Equity advisory panel under section 5002. Title three. So that is repeated here. Again, so this is the, the bureau of racial justice statistics advisory panel. And that has same similar, very similar five members, and that is one by the committee on committees, not a current legislature, one by the speaker, one by the chief justice, one by the governor. And one by the human rights commission. Identical language about the backgrounds of the, of the members that would be drawn from diverse backgrounds to represent the interest of communities of color and other historically disadvantaged communities throughout the state. And have experience working to implement racial justice reform. And I think that's the key thing. Like I mentioned, there are also some geographically diverse areas of the state. Some rather boilerplate language that you next see about the staggering of the terms. The idea is to make sure that, since, you know, this panel is just getting started, that they're going to be staggered at the beginning. They're going to be three year terms, except that, you know, they're going to try and stagger so that everybody doesn't expire at once, especially during the first year. But that's pretty standard language. I'm sure the committee has seen. The members of this panel elect by majority vote a chair. And the idea is to get them appointed on or before September this year so they can get ready for when their terms begin in January. So moving on to the duties and responsibilities of panel you see that again very similar to the executive director of racial equity relationship. This panel here works with and assists the executive director of the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics to implement the requirements that we just went through in other words other data compilation and reporting requirements work with them on that. Advise the executive director to ensure ongoing compliance with these purposes. Now here's a crucial one though this sort of starting to get into the policy role of the advisory panel. They evaluate that data and the analysis that they get from the Bureau and rate recommendations as a result of the evaluation so there's this back and forth communications loop. They look at the data and consider what other steps need to be taken or any other recommendations as a result of the policy goals of both bodies. So every year on or before January 15 report to the committees on judiciary and government operations with its findings and you see their subdivisions and be very important for what these reports have to contain the findings regarding systemic racial bias and disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems based upon the debt and the analysis that the panel received from the Bureau so they take that data from the Bureau synthesize it and on the basis of that they make recommendations the panel makes recommendations to the legislature. That's the sort of information loop that I was mentioning earlier, and as well the report has to include the status report on progress made toward this. The goal of addressing systemic racial bias in the system so it's sort of got a combination of recommendations status report what have we done. You know what needs to be done next. You're standard per diem compensation for each member of the panel language. As I mentioned earlier, you also have specifically positions created within the Bureau racial justice statistics and as you can see, these permanent positions are all with the exception of the administrative one administrative support position. But in addition to that one the other three positions including the executive director they're all be there. They are all information technology data analysts to staff persons who are it data analysts and the executive director as well. So this is a very much a an it it data operation, as opposed to the panel, which these requirements are not in effect and they don't have to be dead and was the panel panel or as the broad diverse background, meant to be the policy direction of the of the structure. There's an appropriation as well as the appropriations based on numbers that I received from the joint fiscal office as to the support needed for the for the four positions I just mentioned. Eric, can we go back to the executive director position. The one in existing line I mean for no one. That's the exact. That's the current. Yes, sorry, yep. The executive, the exempt executive director of the Bureau should be an implement information technology data analysts that's as want to be confusing as executive director of that in the executive director of their racial title title. I didn't quite follow the sorry Senator Sears that having two executive directors in the same department. Oh, I see what you mean. I think that I think there's only this one I think they're all referring to the same person. I can clarify that it's confusing that the idea is that the. So here's the executive director spot in the of the Bureau of Racial Justice statistics. So that's the position that's being referred to in the, and the panel works with the executive director. And the panel I don't, I think just has a chair right. Yeah, so the panel has a chair. But there's only one executive director. But was on as an executive director. And we're putting it under her. Oh, I see what you mean. So how many, you know, wouldn't be, I think it's confusing to refer to both as executive director. Right. Absolutely. Certainly clarify that just to be clear though this position is not under the existing executive director separate from just so people know that separate chapter within the same chapter of statute but this, this position is under this panel. No, this is under the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics advisory panel. This is where this executive director resides totally separate from Susanna's position. Representative Rachel had a question. Thank you, Senator. So I think one way or the other the titles of these two people are going to get confused one way or the other even though they're separate entities. And I think that it's strange that the only qualification that's listed for this executive director is that they be an analyst, like, don't we want somebody who is committed to. So it does seem like the executive director has other duties besides being an analyst and that muddies the water. It also said that this position reports to the governor unless the governor delegates that responsibility to the commissioner or the secretary of administration. And it'd be good to talk about that too to just see if there are any nuances about that if it gets delegated. And again, I think the role of what this executive director is going to do and ultimately what the qualifications in the name are are going to need more discussion. Could I ask a question about that also. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. So I just wondered if we had a discussion about whether this, the, this whole bureau should be under, under Susanna's position. As part of racial justice and set of creating a whole new new office or new, whatever. So I would like at some point to have that discussion and then I'd also just question. And I'm not sure Eric if this is for you. We have the Bureau analyzing and having a website that people have access to before the panel actually does any policy work around it and recommendations and I, I would just like to have a discussion sometime about how those two issues work together because it seems that the analysts can put forward information, but it's the panel that's setting the policy and the recommendations and if, if, if we need to do some adjustments there. So those are two issues I would like to discuss at some point. Thank you. Thank you. Definitely flag those. Thank you so much. It's a great process that I, that representative grad and I had planned would be for the house to take the first shot at this so they may solve that problem. Okay. But certainly, then if we come over to the Senate, obviously. I'm hoping that we can do it this year. Okay. Thank you. Great. Alice, can I ask a question? Absolutely. So I'm just wondering with regard to the school data and the juvenile data. I'm wondering. It seems like things are very specific with regard to the demographic data and not sure what the demographic data in this will include. But I don't see where it addresses confidentiality. And in terms of small numbers from certain schools that are very small. I don't think those schools won't be immediately put out in the limelight as having some situations that perhaps should be kept confidential. So I'm not sure how is that being addressed or can that, I'd like somebody to address that if it isn't somehow covered. I don't think it's specifically covered in the language center, but certainly absolutely it's an issue that you can just can address. I'm jotting these issues down as, as. As the legislators mentioned them that the representative Rachel send center white center series have mentioned these and I'm jotting them down so I'll jot that one down as well. Thanks. Yep. Let's see Selena, I think I saw your hand. Yeah, I was just going to say in a couple of recent bills that we passed where we had data collection requirements we worked with crime victim services center and the crime research group to come up with some language about sort of reporting up to the point of just ensuring protections for victims privacy in particular and so maybe there's a basis there and I can point you to some of that language if it's helpful Eric. Thank you that'd be great. So that actually is the end of the walkthrough I could. Should I pull the document down I think I mentioned the appropriation. Yeah, I can leave the document up or pull it down whenever the preferences for the chairs. Yeah, the effective date July 1, 2022. I got why we did that. Yeah, I think it was just as it often is wondering whether everyone involved needs more time but on the other hand, maybe it really should be 2021 especially since you have the appropriation in there and their language we saw that the appointments needed to be made. We're always the goal is to have them applied sooner. House House can take that issue up as they work on it. Right. Consider if we can get this bill done this year. So noted. Coach, I see your hand. Sorry, get unmuted. I'm thinking in terms of what representative Colburn had mentioned. There is language and Senator Nick. There is language in both human services and education for that disaggregated data for small populations. You know, we've got schools that, you know, have very small numbers. And when you identify a poverty student or a disabled student, or a BIPOC student, if they're the only family in the school, it's pretty obvious. You know, where the disparity is. So there are provisions in both agencies for how that data is treated. So it would be worth maybe incorporating that with the other language that we used in the domestic violence related bills. Just food for thought. If I'm jotting that down to thank you representative Christie. Great. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Eric for keeping track. Yep. Jade it. Okay, I'm not not seeing anybody else. Okay, great. Thank you so much for your, your thorough walkthroughs and drafting. And this was a heavy lift, big, big piece of drafting we asked you to do so. I appreciate it. Happy to help. Thank you. I did mention the last thing that I did mention this, the type, the Bureau of racial justice statistics is in some ways drawn. I'm sure people have heard that. The Department of Justice has a Bureau of Justice statistics bjs. So that's where I came up with the name just seemed like it would be appropriate to similar entity but targeted specifically toward racial justice statistics so that's where that came from. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you. There aren't any other questions and it works for you, Senator Sears. How about it? Yes. We go to Dr. A10 this red and long ago. Sounds great. And good morning and welcome. Good morning. Thank you representative. There you are. I'm here. I'm here. Can you hear me? Absolutely. Okay, great. Great. For the record, I'm Dr. A10 nest red and long ago and I am the chair of the racial disparities advisory panel. And I'm here this morning to present their current thinking on this bill to you in hopes that it may be of use. As you probably know, we meet once a month for two hours. And so since this bill came into being we've had literally six hours in which to discuss it. And we've been working quite diligently quite hard on this, talking about the location for this proposed Bureau. And I would also say that this has not led to a clear conclusion and that may actually be of use to you, because it would allow some flexibility in in your thinking and I'm hoping to contribute to that. So we have a summary here of some animating concerns behind the panel's discussion of the possible entities for housing this bureau. First of all of these was the issue of independence. That was very, very much prime in the minds of the panel as a whole. I'm not going to make a vote and so on for this, but I'm going back over our minutes from the last three meetings, and this was absolutely the first determinant in discussing locations. Next was trust in the results that the Bureau comes up with a certain that would also of course allied with the notion of transparency. But there needs to be competence in the work that the Bureau performs. Also another issue that was raised by several panelists was sufficient authority to do the work. In other words, that the Bureau needs to be given the authority to request the data that it needs in order to perform this work and that may sound slightly obvious, but it's not to some people who are very smart who are on the panel that that needs to be made very, very clear. And then of course, another important factor is that there need to be sufficient financial resources available to do the work. Another panelist Sheila Linton, who is the co founder of the Root Social Justice Center in Brattleboro, said quite bluntly, I strongly support an independent body on this. We need to guarantee actual independence and the perception of independence. We need public trust. And that gets to what you've already put in the bill about the public facing website and such. But this was really a very strong sentiment that many people on the panel had. I've prepared a slide, not a very elegant slide that I forwarded to Evan O'Connor, and I don't know whether you've all had a chance to look at it it was simply outlining the eight possible locations that the R DAP has discussed. I'll go through those the first was. Oh, there it is. Again, as I say, not extremely elegant but there you have it. The first was under the executive director of racial equity under Susanna Davis's office. There were some pros and cons on this and some of them were in fact expressed by director Davis herself. The first was under the agency of digital services. Next, as a standalone body. Fourth in the legislature's joint fiscal office. Next, the second in the office of the secretary of state. The office of the Vermont State auditor, seven, the Human Rights Commission and I believe there's been some discussion about that already. And then lastly, but not by any means least, the National Center for restorative justice which is a more an academic entity that's housed in a variety of institutions, including UVM. There's been a bunch of discussion about all of these from the standpoint of pros and cons. James Pepper from the office of states attorneys and sheriffs weighed in. And he noted that for some, like a standalone body, the joint fiscal office or the Human Rights Commission have the, they would have this body would have the benefit of a fair degree of independence from political pressure. And the second force that exists already obviously deals with similar topics. Others like the agency of digital services, the state auditor, auditor, or the Human Rights Commission have particular skills, useful to the work of the bureau that they already use between business like data collection and analysis conducting investigations and audits or investigating discrimination. Even with those there could be an awkward fit between their core mission and the bureau's mission. Some entities like those under the direct control of an elected official may experience political pressures that do not align with the bureau's mission. Rebecca Turner, another panelist, and I believe she's speaking this morning so I certainly don't want to take her thunder away but she contributed very heavily to this conversation she is a supervisor, supervising attorney in the appellate division of the office of the defender general. She made the point that it doesn't necessarily make sense to put this body within the task force or under the executive director of racial equity, just because it's on a similar subject matter. And that similarity doesn't mean that the structure of that office is suited to this task. And that is partly I believe if I remember correctly because those those offices report to elected officials. And that compromises independence. I believe that the Secretary of State of the auditor would have independence from the governor, and a certain responsiveness to the people of the state. The auditor does investigations now and can support this type of effort. The Human Rights Commission, obviously deals with similar issues, and does investigations. And at this last meeting it was one of those wonderful moments when as a teacher you have an arc, and then one of your smart students throws in a curveball you want to hit them, but it's brilliant, and absolutely to the point. And at that last meeting that was Tyler Allen from the Department of Children and Families and he was a wonderful I was completely thrown but it was marvelous. He asked if the collection and analysis would be handled by the same entity, or would they be separated. One should collect the others should analyze, and the panel agreed broadly with Tyler's question, which was basically should be one entity or two one for data collection, and one for data analysis, and that that should. It can and should be part of the discussion around choosing an entity or entities, under which to house the proposed Bureau. Another person who's interested in this work was sort of helpful in this to me. And that would be Christopher Loris of the crime research group, who drew my attention to h265 and act relating to the office of the child advocate. In, I guess it's what chapter 32 subsection 3202, which is specifically on the office of the child youth and family advocate there is certain language at the end of that paragraph. So, while the office shall be embedded in and receive administrative support from the agency of administration, the office shall act independently of any state agency in the performance of its duties. I have not been able to bring this before the panel yet our meeting is a week from last night, as a matter of fact, but I think a broad support for including some sort of language like this in h317. I think it would be helpful and prudent to put something like this in very explicitly on a broader problem that needs to be addressed and several of you have mentioned that already this morning. I think it's that the data needed across all state systems of state government need to be analyzable extractable present and open to public scrutiny. In short, what is proposed here ought to be a template for all of state government to assume that the criminal and juvenile justice systems are separate is perhaps a bit. Is it wrong. Certainly short sighted. As we all know racial disparity exists in many locations. We see it in healthcare, the governor made some decisions about vaccinations based on that acknowledgement, we see it in education. It would seem that this notion of standardization that came up very, very prominently in the report that the panel released is still a prime importance and needs to be considered, and perhaps considered very broadly. I would like to wind everything up with just making a few notes on the issue of independence and why that is of such great importance here. And I want to do that by talking about the difference between civil rights and human rights. Civil rights of course are always considered to be the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality. Human rights are considered to be a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person. Clearly, there's a blending and a blurring here, voting is thought to be civil, but it also belongs at least in this country quote justifiably to every person, unquote. Apparently this isn't entirely true all of the time we're now looking at a situation where in Georgia, if you're poor and cannot easily travel, you will have problems voting, given legislation that is currently pending. Another issue here would be water. This happened in Flint, Michigan. At one point, the water was coming very nicely from the lake and now it's coming from the Dearborn River, and that isn't turning out very well for the children of that community. Racial matters are always thought to be civil rights. So our gender expression, right, certain people around sexual orientation, and certainly around class. They don't argue human rights. They're inalienable, except that they're not. And we all know that they're not we argue these all the time. Civil rights are always held to be in some political realm where debate happens, where disagreement happens, where the statement, people of good conscience can disagree functions. The cornerstone of the democracy this notion of debate and disagreement. And there's a connection here that's obvious, I think, between the civil and the political, whereas the human is ideally believed to rest beyond the political, even though in practice, as I've just sort mentioned, it doesn't always. I've always wondered as a individual as a black person as a Jewish person as a queer person, why my rights were civil rights. Why weren't they human rights. I was wondering why my rights were something people could argue about. They don't seem arguable to me that if we're talking about the pursuit of happiness, which is a phrase that has been enshrined for over 240 years in this country. I would say that's a human right. It's considered that way. And there's a blurring here that I'm getting at between the civil and the human recently transgender people went through this sort of change in political wind, and they did it quite dramatically, and it's not over. There was a relative opening under the Obama administration, and that a dramatic closing for service members around issues of rights under the last administration. And now, I'm not sure we know there does seem to be opening under the Biden administration, but history tells us that that should not reassure anyone for the long term, all it takes as an executive order. All it takes is an executive order, and the damages here are obvious among veterans in 2019. Transgender patients had a more than two fold greater hazard of suicide than then then their cisgender patient compatriots did more than two fold greater hazard. One can legitimately ask how this politicization of rights plays into this fact. How does it play, how did it play, how does it continue to play into this horrible statistic. I would argue that it's rather difficult to pursue happiness if you're dead. That seems like a human right to me. It doesn't seem very civil. The fact of these questions, just among this one historically stigmatized group demonstrates the need for independence in this proposed bureau. This is why it is of critical importance to the our dad. We think of simple matters of legal inclusion within the body politic as being within the realm of civil rights. I suggest that they are not. I would further say that politicizing efforts at equality becomes unavoidably a human rights issue when the matter of simple well being or existence is factored into the social calculus. People of color cannot depend upon the direction of the political wind for relief. They simply cannot. And this is why the our dad believes so strongly in this idea of independence and urges you to consider it with the same seriousness that we have used. We ask you in closing to take these matters into account as you deliberate and debate, and we ask you to think of the blurring of the civil and the human, and the not necessarily monetary costs involved in this blurring. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you so much and and also thank you to your group for their very thoughtful analysis and feedback and I look forward to us hearing from from some of the members that are here today. What if I turn it over to you because I know that you're well I know. Yeah, we're going to be leaving in about five minutes and hopefully, you know, and I'm glad that we got to hear the testimony. I don't have any questions right on anybody on the Judiciary Committee that does we're going to be leaving at 1015 and moving over to another bill for the Senate Judiciary Committee House Judiciary Committee will continue on. I really thank Representative grad, Eric, a ton for allowing us to join you this morning to hear the important information in this bill we look forward to continuing to collaborate and work together. Whatever folks decide on where to put this, whether it's an independent organization. It's to get adequate information or Vermont to be able to make good policy choices and to make sure that we can explain and to look at why certain things have happened in the past and what what we can do to all those and I was, you know, disappointed when the justice reinvestment effort went on and was unable to come up with data that would have informed us in a better way because the data didn't exist. So whichever way we do this whether to stand alone. However we do it we need the information. I think not having the information leads us to making wild speculation sometimes. So, thank you all very much. See the Senate Judiciary Committee over on the other channel. Absolutely. Whatever that might be. Thank you. Thank you so much. Great. Bye bye. Okay, so why don't we were about five minutes ahead but why don't we take our break now and come back at