 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the February 2024 meeting of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel. Let's just get going. Let's start with introductions. I'll go through the Hollywood squares as usual. Aaron, could you start us off, please? Good evening. I have to go back and do it. I had the jury has a question, so I'm leaving and coming back. Got it. Absolutely. It happens. And Judge Morrissey's leaving coming and going doesn't affect our quorum. So we're good there. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Aaron Jacobson. I am the attorney general's designee. I work in our offices community justice unit. Thank you. Chief Don. I'm Don Stevens, chief of the Nalhegan Band of the Kusak Abenaki Nation. Great. Thank you. Judge Morrissey will do when she can. Grant. Hi, Grant Taylor here taking minutes for the group. Good to see everybody again. Rebecca. Hi, everyone. I have a call this evening and so excuse my, your voice, but Rebecca Turner from the office is in general. Great. Tyler. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tyler Allen. I am the commissioner appointed designee for DCF. Great. Thank you. Laura. My name is Laura Carter. I am a data analyst in the division of racial justice statistics for the office of racial equity. Great. Thank you. Jessica. Jessica Brown. She, her assistant professor and director of the center for justice reform at Vermont law and graduate school. Great. Daniel. And then it's my state police deputy director, the chair and partial policing. Great. Elizabeth. Elizabeth Morris. I'm a family services division, but not the DCF does it. Great. Thank you. Sheila. Sheila Linton. She, her pronouns on executive director of the root social justice center and panel member. Farzana. Hi. Good afternoon. Evening for Zana Lava Orleans County state's attorney. Great. Zoe Hart. Zoe Hart just concerned citizen sitting in. Okay. Thank you. Tiffany. Hi. Good evening. Tiffany North read with the division for racial justice statistics with the office of racial equity. Okay. I'm assuming Isaac's autopilot will not return return. An invite. Although I may be wrong. Isaac's autopilot. No, that's a transcription service. I thought so. Thank you. Susana. Hi, everybody. Susana Davis racial equity director for the state. Great. Chris. Loris. Chris, you're muted. Chris for Loris. I'll see it. Where'd you go? I'm here. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Chris for Loris. Sorry about that, folks. Research associate with crime research group. And just here, observing full disclosure until the end of this month. I'm still a member of the Vermont criminal justice council. Great. Jack Rose. Hi there. Yeah. Thanks. I am Jack Rose. She, her pronouns. I am at department of corrections. I'm the health equity record. But I am not the designee. I expect that Derek Midovnik will be arriving. He might be late, but he's our D. O. C. Designee. Great. Reverend Mark Hughes. Executive director for my racial justice alliance. I'm just watching tonight. Welcome. And I will not be able to pronounce VPA VPA. Lindsay Terrage, director of administration for Vermont criminal justice council. Okay, great. Okay, welcome all a few announcements. Fairly short. And I don't suppose I really need to say much about it. There's no re litigating anything. Okay, the report's done. We've been have we've been doing this for every year. It's done. Little things are fine. I know that there is a request from gosh, I'm blanking now I've got so much in my head I can't hold it on the attorney general to move their statement to another place in the report. So things of that nature are fine. But there's no major opening this up again. And yeah, it's if you don't like it, your group doesn't like it your commissioner doesn't like it. It's no, just vote no. Okay. There's just no time for anything more than that at this point. And that is the large point that I want to make the smaller one is Elizabeth you're going to handle actually the voting and writing things down. Correct. So there's been a little bit of a change with that. Can you talk about what you're going to do. So my plan is that really fun spreadsheets. What I've done is I have added everybody's name and I'm happy to share my screen. While I do this, although my people might prefer to see each other's faces. And as we do roll call, which I believe we have to because nothing is going to be unanimous. I will indicate yes no or abstain for every vote for every person as we go through in that spreadsheet so that we don't have to I know you had suggested taking photos at the end. But this is just an alternative. If it's if it's appropriate. That's also a lot less crazy than everybody having to take photos and I mean I don't know, you know, I'll come up with something incredibly insane and and I did. Um, so there's that Oh Derek want to introduce yourself. I'm sorry. I'm in a dark car. Derek can be a deaf Nick. Designee to the Department of Corrections. Great. And Tim. Tim leaders to what department of state's attorneys and church. Great. Okay. That is really the big stuff. The other stuff that I need to ask about. I'll do a new business. Because it really falls under that I think. Let's see. I also had forgotten because when I wrote the agenda, I hadn't yet. Gotten the minutes and so they were out of sight out of mind. We have the minutes from our last meeting. And we need to approve or change or throw out the minutes from our meeting in January. Does anyone have discussion on those. Okay, seeing none. Do someone want to make a motion? I moved to approve the minutes from our January 9th, 2024 meeting. Thank you. A second. Thank you, Sheila. Second. All in favor signify in some really dramatic way. Hi. Hi. All opposed. Oh, okay. Sorry. All opposed. Okay. All abstaining. The minutes are approved as submitted. Thank you. And we'll. Pardon. I thought I started something. Those will get to and Walker for posting. All right. Now let's start on the report. Let us begin with that. Elizabeth, I think I'm going to work. I'm sorry. I keep hearing background stuff, folks. Can we try to keep that to a minimum? Thanks. Elizabeth. Let's work together on this one because yeah, I think that'll work best. We're going to vote on the, you all have the spreadsheet. So you know what you're doing. I'm going to go through it. It goes through the report. And I think Elizabeth, go ahead and start us. What is the first item on the. On the spreadsheet is. I believe we're starting with second look. We are. And. The first question is second look legislation should remain focus on addressing and correcting racial disparities. We need to vote on that and we're going to go one by one. It's a little slow, but it is necessary for transparency. And accountability. So I will go again. I'll do, I'll continue playing. Holly would squares and please give your vote out loud when we get to you. We'll start again with Aaron. Okay, I just need to preface my votes on second look by saying the attorney general's office does not support second look legislation at this time. If there is any second look legislation, then we would vote yes, that any second look legislation should remain focused on addressing and correcting racial disparities. So can we make a spot. Elizabeth for. Those kinds of splits just write them out or something. Yeah, I will say, and I know what's our last meeting we talked about taking an overarching vote on whether or not. You're supportive of second look legislation. I know that there was not necessarily general consensus on whether or not we should or should not do that. I would say that that would make this process a lot easier. Oh, I know, I know. But it's, it's not what's going to happen. I think. Unfortunately, Tim. My recollection from that was that. I believe I had raised that that would be helpful or someone had raised it. I thought that's what we were going to do, which is why when I sent back my recorded votes. I told our executive committee that it was that we could do that overarching piece and maybe I misunderstood from the last. Last meeting, so we could, but then what was the point of everybody sort of. Part divvying it up. Yeah. Yeah, I'm happy and I'm happy to also kind of do the same thing that Aaron just did to if that's, that's helpful. But what I can do is still keep people who really want to say no. That I, you know, my, you know, I can't support second look legislation. I can still keep track of that, even if it's not an official vote. That would make as part of the discussion. Chief Don. Good question. Should we also say why, or why not we approve or disapprove or do you not want that reasoning in record. I personally don't find that particularly important at the moment because when this becomes. If it becomes, if any of this becomes legislation, there will be a chance for that in testimony. Okay, so if I say no against something, if anybody wants clarification, they should ask me then. Yep. Okay. You are next chief. I approve on that question. Thank you. Judge Morrissey is still out. Rebecca. I just also for the record, there's a chat or request from someone here from the public requesting we make a record because they don't have the Excel spreadsheet. We do as panel members, but they don't know what we're voting on. Maybe we could go back to Elizabeth's idea of screen sharing. Okay. For me, that's Lindsay to verge. I am voting for the executive director and in place of Jen Furpo. So I do not have that spreadsheet. If it would be possible to share that. Yeah. I was just looking to see if I could also drop it in. Zoom is not liking it for me if there's anybody else who has a copy of it, or you can send me your email. I can sort it to Lindsay right now. And it also did not want me to drop it into the chat. I tried that. Thank you. I don't know why zoom won't let us do that right now. I will say just for the record, it might be best for every vote to be stated out loud, even if we have the spreadsheet. Yes, I agree. We haven't done that. You mean reading off each item, right? Yeah. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Let me try to figure out where we are at this point. Anybody else got anything. Sheila. I'm just curious because if I wasn't on the panel and even being on the panel for those who are in the community, I'm very curious of why people would vote no. You know, I'm less concerned of why people might vote yes, because we have it, you know, we're voting on the document in front of us and we're saying yes. But I would really like for those who are voting that say no to just briefly say why. And I think that's important for our community to know. Discussion. I would second Sheila's point. I don't think that saying something on the record means that we have to put it in the report and bog down that process, which I understand is a Tom's concern. But in this moment of critical vote. I think that is there. I also would request Elizabeth or whoever Aaron. Instead of worrying about the posting of the Excel spreadsheet, just the first question we're voting on or the question we're currently voting on, throw it in the chat or say it out loud. So we have a record. I. Okay, I said it out loud and that didn't work apparently. I'm happy to. All hands on deck. I can put the prompts we're voting on in the chat as we get to them. That's fine. I'll do that. My one other thought logistically is the people who are voting our panel members. And I'm wondering if if Elizabeth has all of our names on a spreadsheet and a particular order. Maybe Elizabeth could call on each of us for each prompt. I mean, we're not trying to take any official duties away from you a ton. I don't think you're having to try to remember if you've called on everyone. Does that make sense. That makes perfect sense. My brain is a little addled. Yes. So I'm going to put the first prompt in the chat and turn it over to Elizabeth. Thank you, Jessica. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to list them as the members are listed on the website. So if anybody is voting for someone or by any chance the website is off. And also bear with me. I know we're missing some people today. I'm still going to say their name. We can pause and then move on just until just so I don't miss anybody. So just to recap, we are voting on the second look legislation should remain focused on addressing and correcting racial disparity. First, I have Jeffrey. I do not believe is here, but I'll pause case I'm wrong. And the next person as listed right on the website is Sheila. I'm voting in favor of firming. Yes. Sheila. Next is a Tom. Yes. I already have your vote. Chief. Next is witchy. Who is not here. Tyler. Yes, I'm going to vote for abstaining. And I'll give a rationale. There's a number of items that DCF has to abstain from. There's, there's several, there's several votes that that I have. I have yeses on and then the other one DCF is not taking official position on so I'm going to abstain. Next is Susanna. So I can look racial disparities. I vote yes. I next is Jennifer Furpo. So I apologize. It's Lindsay. Lindsay. Lindsay to verge. I vote yes. We have Aaron's boat. So next I have a customer. That is now Daniel Bennett. This is a great exercise in which parts of the website we have to update. I was just thinking about, yeah. Dan. Yes. Was that yes to my saying your name or yes, you're agreeing. Both. Got it. I have Tim up next. And I'll just do a brief explanation as to probably all the votes. So last Friday, the executive committee, and this is approved by a ton in advance. I can just do this brief disclaimer. So I won't do it every time going forward. But the executive committee of states attorneys looked at the draft report that Elizabeth had sent out last Friday. And on this one, perhaps because of my own oversight. I had basically just said a yes or no on this one. So this would be in the minutes essentially just to record that. That's the way that I asked the states attorneys and for Zana, who's one of my bosses can vouch for that. But because of that, everything on second look will be a no for me, Elizabeth. So you can record that going forward. And that's the process I did for all of the different sections. I had a long meeting with the states of the executive committee of states attorneys. Who directed my vote on this piece. And also in January and December, I shared a list like the state's attorneys executive committee response questions, comments on this, which is in the report. And I'm very grateful for that. So no on this reasons why getting the shield as point listed in that memo that I produced in the report. Thanks. Thanks. Next I have Dara. I apologies. I just unfortunately couldn't avoid traveling for the first 20 minutes of meeting. Derek me Dev Nick behalf of the department corrections and for convenience sake this will be applicable across all the policy positions that are being voted on tonight do see is going to abstain from taking any specific position relative to the items on the spreadsheet. Next step is judge Morrissey I'm not sure she's back yet, although she did. You know, I got a note she is there reviewing something during that piece so she's yeah she's going to be caught up for a while. So next and last I have for Rebecca. So if there's anybody other than Rebecca who hasn't voted please make sure they lose their hands. I'm going to speak up then. Oh, Jess. I am also a panel member. Thank you. And I'm going to happen. And I vote yes. And now I'll turn it back to Rebecca. Rebecca you did Rebecca. Oh, I didn't unmute. I vote yes. Great. Jeff Jones is here as well. Get the audio going here. So Jeff just I didn't catch when you popped on but Jessica put in the chat the specific recommendation regarding second look that we are voting on right now and that is second look legislation should remain focused on addressing and reducing potential disparities. Can you hear me now. Yeah. Okay, I'm yes. Thank you. Wonderful. And I know a ton you said at the beginning of this, no edits the report I absolutely understand that. I do think we just need to do a review for members because I think some of these people are not everybody is listed. So just to be clear in my mind that ends that vote and then it would be a next vote on the next one, which means we might need a motion in a second. If you think appropriate a ton or we can just continue on. I think we can just continue on we have always decided to do Roberts light. I think Roberts light really works here. I think we're just going to keep going. We have had these in front of us for weeks now. There's no reason for there to be any question about it any longer. Let's just move along. Perfect. Thank you. So the second recommendation regarding second look is that legislation should be guided by science and data relating to recidivism, racial disparities, the age of the person when the crime was committed, the age of the person at crime of sentence review, and any other relevant factors supported by science and data. And I will start with Jeff. I will vote yes. Next up is Sheila. I affirm yes. Be torn. Yes. Steven. Yes. Which he's not here. Tyler. Staying. And just to confirm even if you've told me I'm still going to call you. So appreciate you for bearing with me. Jessica. Yes. Here's Anna. Second look science and data. I vote yes cautiously and just want to say on the record that of course this is with the understanding that sometimes data and the sciences can be weaponized against people from historically marginalized groups. So we want to be careful about it. But generally, yes, I'm going to vote yes on this one. Thank you. So next would be Lindsay voting for Jennifer. Yes. With my same preamble as last time. Yes. Daniel. Yes. Tim. Same preamble as last time. Copy Aaron's term and no. I dare abstain. Don't believe judge Morris. He is back. So Rebecca. Yes. Okay. So third. Second look. Read second look legislation should commit to sentence reconsideration laws that apply to all persons sentenced to imprisonment without carve out offenses or age. And we will start with Jeff. Yes. Sheila. Firm yes. Aton. Yes. I vote no. There could be a there's always exceptions to any rule. Stain. Jessica. Yes. Susanna. Second look all persons no carve outs. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furrow. Yes. Aaron. Attorney General's office votes no on this one. Daniel. Tim. No. Derek. Arm of corrections abstains. Don't believe judge Morris. He's back. So that leaves us with Rebecca. Yes. So the last second look. Vote is second look legislation should integrate restorative justice principles that are inclusive of reentry supports for both offenders and victims. So I will start with Jeff. You were a little garbled at the end just so you know. So I didn't quite get that. I'm going to abstain nothing either way. Okay. I can repeat it. I'll just repeat it even if you continue to abstain. Second look legislation should integrate restorative justice principles that are inclusive of reentry support for both offenders and victims. And is now in the chat as well. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to abstain because I'm not clear on my thoughts. Excuse me. Sheila. Yes. Yes. Chief Stevens. Yes. With a caveat that it doesn't as long as it doesn't cause further harm to the victim. Tyler. You see Apple abstain. Yes. Susanna. Second look restorative justice. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo. Yes. Erin. Yes. Daniel. Yes. Tim. After mentioned explanation and no. Daria. Armina corrections abstains. It's Morrissey. I'm not even sure what question we're on right now. I'm sorry. I just barely came back. No worries. We are voting on the very last second look legislation which is that it should integrate restorative justice principles that are inclusive of reentry supports for both offenders and victims. Okay. And the judiciary is not taking a position. Thank you. I'm just going to write down abstain for you. And just roll call. I'm I'm still going to go through and ask everybody. So I appreciate you bearing with me as you continue to repeat that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I know that's that's your stance on everything. Yeah. Thank you. It's critical to do that. Elizabeth. It really is. So. So we should be clear that I think Judge Morrissey that we voted on three other. Second look. Legislation prompts and. So. Where I think we're all assuming that you're abstaining on behalf of us. Sorry. Sorry about this back and forth. It's. We're trying to figure out if we can come back tomorrow. It's. It's a. Take some unexpected turns. So sorry. Duty calls. Yeah. Does. So that brings us to Rebecca. The last question restorative justice. Second look. Yes. Hey. So that rounds out the four votes on second look legislation. Right. And the next section which is juvenile justice. And a tunnel. I'll let you decide. I know. I know we're doing Roberts rule light. But I didn't know if people wanted to have any discussion on. Anything that we just voted on or anything like that. Yeah. No. That's fine. That's fine. Is there any discussion. Can I respond to Sheila please. Go ahead. Sheila wanted to know. For folks who are voting no. Why. And I would just say that the attorney general. Offices. Why. We. Do not support. Second look at this time is in the report. I'm happy to. Explain it further. But I didn't want to take up more time. Nor did I want to ignore your request Sheila. Sheila go ahead. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I also just had another request. If those who are voting. I'm not sure if everybody who is voting is on camera. But I think it would be appropriate. For those who are panel members that are voting to be on camera when doing so. I'm going to respectfully decline to do that this time around to minimize distraction while I'm in transit. Okay. Go ahead. Elizabeth. So. As I said earlier that brings us to the juvenile justice section. The first vote. Is that. Art app recommends that the minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction increase from 10 to at least. 12 years. And that any decision to raise. Minimum age. Juvenile court jurisdiction. The data and science driven. And I will start with Jessica. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. You got added in a little strangely. So I apologize. Next is Jeff. Yes. Sheila. Yes. A ton. Yes. He runs. I'm going to say yes. With a caveat saying. I'm not sure about. Of being murder or something. Of that aspect. But overall yes. Tyler. Yes. She's on a. Juvenile justice minimum age. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer. Yes. Aaron Jacobson. Yes. I've Daniel. Yes. You're muted. Sorry. I'm dealing with a bit of a migraine on the left side of my face. So I'm going to. Don't want to have you guys stare at my twitching left eye. I'm vote we're voting yes on this. Just with a note from the state's attorney's executive committee that the point of and this is just for the minutes as a ton and I've discussed but the point of this is to. You know when someone is engaging with. Certain conduct the point is to engage them with services. Get them rehabilitation in title 33. And so. Ensuring that we have the ability to. Provide services to someone in this type of circumstance. We vote yes but just noting that we still need to be able to get services to folks. Thank you. And folks. Sorry. Let me interrupt for a moment. Just know that your caveats and stuff are going to be in the minutes. They are not going to be in the report. Unless they already are. Okay. Just there it is. Sorry. Go ahead Elizabeth. No, don't worry. Next up is Derek. Corrections that stands. Judge Morrissey. She might have had to. But off again. So we're back up. Yes. That brings us to the second. Judicial justice recommendation. Which is our DAP recommends that at a minimum there be a statutory requirement that the race. Ethnicity data following arrests and citations be uniformly filled out. On the judiciary's form. One. So we will start. Back at the beginning with Jessica. Yes. Jeffrey. Yes. Yes. Chief Stevens. Yes. Yes. Juvenile justice. Uniform forms about yes. Lindsay for Jennifer purple. Yes. Aaron Jacobson. Yes. Daniel. Yes. Tim. Yes. I did. Yeah. Sorry. Abstain. Judge Morrissey if she's back. She's had to go again. I think. That leaves us with Rebecca. Yes. So the third JJ related. Vote. Is an in keeping this in mind this one is connected to the second. Which is that our death recommends that both law enforcement perception and court perception of the youth. It's gathered. And I'll start with Jess. Well I have a question about this vote because the way I read the. The spreadsheet was that we're supposed to be voting for one or the other of the last two. Props am I reading that correctly I was going to put them both in the chat. So should I be saying which one I vote for or. What I think is going to make it easiest for me. Just to be frank is just to say you know say you support. Law enforcement perception. And court perception. You'd say yes to this one. And then. To number five you would say. Or next you think row five. So law enforcement perception and self identification you would say no. So you would just vote opposite essentially. Does that work for everybody or is there still confusion that works for me. Okay. Okay well I'm still going to put both of them in the chat but so I am voting. No to. Law enforcement and court perception. I do see a hand raised. Don. Yes I just want some clarification so. Is the the these three questions. Are we only picking one out of the three or where is that separation because I'm. Reading where it says row four row five or row six in the report depending upon which is the majority. So you're only picking one out of the three correct. Yeah exactly. There's essentially. Different options for what we could go with and we had a really robust conversation about this last month. So I think we're going to know how we land. But obviously the vote is still really important because we didn't take a vote last last month. So there are all three of them say law enforcement perception. I want to make that clear. So if you don't agree with law enforcement perception you're going to want to vote no to all three of them. Just to be very clear. If you just think law enforcement perception that's going to be the last one. If you think law enforcement perception and court perception that's the vote we're taking right now. And then the next one is law enforcement perception and self identification. So essentially you're going to want to only say yes to one. Although you could say no to all of them. You could you could be against all. Is that does that clarify. I know this one's a little confusing. It does. I'm sorry. Oh sorry. I'm sorry to be of pain. My spreadsheet. I'm sorry to be of pain. I'm sorry. I had a question. I have a question. I have two. Two choices. Is there an updated spreadsheet with three choices? Because I'm confused. My spreadsheet has. Art app recommends. So we did fill out. Judiciary's form. One on one right. Yes. That was the second one. So then my spreadsheet has. Art app recommends that both law enforcement perception and self-identification of the youth is gathered at a later time, I don't have a third choice. Nor do I. Okay, so we did at the last meeting, I think I was the one who actually suggested it, have a suggestion of having the third option because we were not able to come to any kind of general consensus. If we don't want that third option and don't want to vote on that, I think that's fine, too. I think it's up to, up to, I mean, I'm not a voting member, so I'll let you all discuss it. No, I... Did you want to put all three in the chat because the third one I have is, our DAP recommends that only law enforcement perception of youth is gathered at this time. That's the third option. So just because we have different spreadsheets, do you want to put all three in the chat so people can see it and then you pick one, two or three? I like that. I was gonna say, would that make the vote easier? Just saying one, two, three. I like that. So three, if, Jessica, if you want to put that in the chat, what we just discussed, and then when Elizabeth calls your name, you can say one, two, or three, or abstain, or, I don't know, whatever else. So just to be clear, and also I'll read them off, I did, I also just put them in the chat. So number one is the first one that's right in the chat. Our DAP recommends that both law enforcement perception and court perception of the youth is gathered. Number two would be our DAP recommends that law enforcement perception and self-identification of the youth is gathered at a later time. And three would be our DAP recommends that only law enforcement perception of youth is gathered at this time. And Jessica just numbered them. Perfect. So given that, Jessica, would you like to re-vote? I vote for number two, law enforcement perception and self-identification of the youth. Next up would be Jeffrey. I agree with number two, vote for number two. Next up is Sheila. Same, so I guess no, yes, no. So I vote for number two, yes. DAP is Etan. One. Next up is Chief Stevens. I vote for number two, and the reason just as a caveat, Indian Child Welfare Act invokes special handling and we haven't really talked about native issues much in this report, but there are special rules around DCF, Indian Child Welfare and other types of native things. So it's the identification is important. I just wanted to at least say that. Thank you. Eiler. Yeah, I just want to say that all three of these solutions are acceptable to me, so I'd be happy with any of them, but I'm going to vote for number two. Journal justice, law and self, number two. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo. Lindsay? It appears we might have lost her, I don't see her. I see her, I'm looking right at her. Oh. Okay, Rose, kidding you here. You're sort of cutting in and out, but yeah, not... Can you come back to me? That next up would be Erin. Voting for number two. Daniel? Number one. Number two. Derek? Abstain. Judge Morrissey. We're abstaining, thanks, Rebecca. Number one. Lindsay, are you back? And if not, perhaps, okay, perfect. I was going to say perhaps you can put it on the check. I see you for number one. We've got a word that. Okay, so that ends us for juvenile justice and brings us to community safety. So this one has 11 different votes. Just to be clear, but Aetan, did you want, I didn't know if you wanted a discussion or I can just pop in, whatever. What do people feel? Is there a discussion? Okay, seeing none, go ahead, Elizabeth. So the first recommendation is training should include a readiness assessment who is ready to receive training that contextualizes racism in themselves and in the industry. The first step is Jessica. Yes. Jeffrey. Abstain. Sheila. Yes. Aetan. No. Chief Stevens. I said no, I feel it's subjective and training should be for everyone. Stain. Susanna. Can you come back to me? Yes. Thank you. Lindsay, I think you've may have frozen again, now she's disappeared. She's actually disappeared, like before. We'll circle back, Erin. The attorney general's office is going to abstain on all of the community safety recommendations, including this one. Daniel. Abstain. Derek. Department of Corrections abstains. Judge Morici, although I see her camera off. Right. So Rebecca. Yes. Okay, so that brings us back to Susanna. I'm really sorry. I did review the draft and I didn't see this and I think it might be because I'm looking at an earlier draft, but can somebody help me understand? Is the readiness assessment, I'm so sorry to ask a basic question like this, but is it that if you're deemed not ready, then you don't get the training or that there is some intermediary step provided to you so that you become ready? I again, apologize for having to ask this, but I want to be clear. I did not see that there was any build up to readiness. Is the proponent of that recommendation on the line and maybe can shed some light on what was meant by that? I can't answer that. Sheila, do you know? What's the question? The person who? The question. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I was just asking for the readiness assessment. Is it that if you're deemed not ready, then you just don't get training until you are or that there's something done to make you ready so that you can receive the training? Great question, because this is what I was gonna bring up if we were gonna have discussion around it, is the way I understand that is, and I think Chief Stevens had made this point a little bit, is not to say that if you're not ready, you won't receive the training or preclude you out of it. It is to assess your readiness with it. So that doesn't mean you won't receive the training, but I think in understanding what people's readinesses are and maybe that those people who are more ready than others then that's an assessment that can be done to understand then what is the next steps with that? What needs to be done to make these trainings either more effective or are there additional trainings coupled with what is already in place that is needed as well? So I think it's a little nuanced, but the way I understand it is not saying that somebody who isn't ready would not receive training, it's just seeing what their readiness is for that training. Chief? Chief, I see you with a hand. I don't want to interrupt. I believe in the report I read, but somebody could verify this that if in this section, if it's stated that you weren't deemed to be ready that it wasn't worth training you because you weren't ready to receive it. I think in that draft you might have to go back and look at it, but I think that's what it, there was a specific that said, if you're not ready, then it's not worth training, but you can verify that, at least on my draft, I thought that's what I saw. Chief Stevens, I think that you're correct in some of the language that we've used to discuss this, but I don't think we came to a conclusion that it's not worth training somebody. We just wondered whether it would be, what's the word for it? Whether they, without having buy-in, how much that training really affects their ability to shift or to show up in a different way. So again, I think that it's nuance and I appreciate the questions, but I still feel like for me, I might vote a different way if we're saying that if you're not ready, you fail the readiness assessment, then you don't get the training. I might answer no to this, but I'm voting yes because my understanding is that we want to assess the readiness of folks within the training academy. Thank you all for allowing us to take those few minutes. I think that on this one, I'm going to, I guess, vote no just to lend an eye to post-training effectiveness and information uptake. Thank you. And Lindsay, I see something in the chat. Is this regarding the current vote or a previous vote? That was a while ago. I think that was from the last vote. I do too. Are you? Because it's preceded by her saying, can you come back to me? And then she says, number one. I see her square but not her face. So perhaps I'll just move on. Oh, yeah, I would just request that you do it in the chat so everybody can see. That would be great, Lindsay, if it's possible, if you could put it in the chat at least. She needs to abstain on this one because she needs further clarity. And I do think it's worth the question. Does anybody want to change their vote given that some of the conversation that happened? If that's okay. That's fine. You want to start the vote over again? I was hoping to avoid that, but I was just going to raise the question of does anybody need me to? Okay, okay. I don't. Okay, so I'm good, so I'm going to move on. And I believe we have everybody for the readiness assessment question. So the next recommendation is training should include the origins of policing in America, provider view of the founding of policing in different areas of the country and its change in function. And just given some of the discussion that happened earlier and given that I think some of these recommendations are our nuance for community safety. I will pause for discussion if anybody has questions before I start with Jessica. That seems better. I see none. Then Jessica. I vote yes. Jeffrey. Yes. Sheila. Yes. A-Ton. Yes. Chief Stevens. I'm going to abstain. Tyler. I'm going to abstain. Susanna. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo and hopefully you can put it in the chat. Aaron Jacobson. The A-J-L abstains. Daniel. I apologize, no. Tim. Yes. Darren. Abstain. Judge Morris. We're abstaining. Thanks. Rebecca. Yes. The third vote for community safety is training should include an overview of the many policies that have criminalized people of color and intersecting identities, which contextualizes the use of policing over time in America. Any thoughts, discussion? See none. Jessica. Yes. Yes. Sheila. Yes. A-Ton. Yes. Chief Stevens. Abstain. Tyler. Abstain. Susanna. I vote yes. Jennifer. So Lindsay on behalf of Jennifer and hopefully you can put it in the chat. I see a yes. Great. Aaron. Abstain. Daniel. Yes. I apologize, that was a yes, correct? Yes. Tim. Yes. Darren. Abstain. Judge Morris. Abstain. Thanks. Rebecca. Yes. Our next vote is training should include cultural competency. Norms and behaviors show up differently in different cultures. Law enforcement should be familiar with cultures of different ethnic groups in Vermont and how they may intersect with policing. Any discussion or thoughts, questions? See none. Jessica. I vote yes. Jeffrey. State. Sheila. Yes. A-Ton. Abstain. Chief Stevens. Yes. Tyler. Abstain. Susanna. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo. Yes. Yeah. In the chat. Aaron. Abstain. Daniel. I'm an abstain. Tim. Yes. Derek. James. Judge Morris. She's gone. Oh. Yeah. Now I'm back. The jury went home for the night. So I'm here now. The, we're abstaining. Thanks. Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Great. We are making our progress. I don't feel, we're getting there. So the next vote is about Susan's review boards should have independence. All board members must be free, relational and financial conflicts of interest with law enforcement. Any thoughts or questions? See none. Jessica. Yes. Excuse me. Yes. I'm catching Rebecca's cold. Yes. I know. Rebecca, you do sound. I hope, I hope you get to have some tea and go to sleep after this. Jeffrey. Would I, would it be much to ask you to repeat the question? I didn't know. Citizen review boards should have independence. All board members must be free of relational and financial conflicts of interest with law enforcement. Shula. Yes. Etan. Yes. Chief Stevens. Can I ask a clarifying question or did I am I too late for that? Go for it. When, when you say not having relational interest with law enforcement, I guess my question is if you don't have any kind of law enforcement training, how can you make logical decisions on what you're looking at? If, does that mean you don't have like it's not a mother, brother, father or something or that you just have no relationship with law enforcement at all? Shula, I hate to keep picking on you, but you're the only member of the subcommittee who's here. Okay. So what is the question? I was just asking if when you say no relational interest in law enforcement, does that mean you have no contact with law enforcement whatsoever? Or at which, which means either you're related to a subcommittee in law enforcement or you haven't had the train. Like what could you is, is training in law enforcement practices considered you have a relationship with law enforcement? No, this is specifically about relational like family cousins, like relational interest and financial conflicts. So it's about the actual relationship that people have with people. Yeah, I'm gonna, I'm gonna abstain. We were abstains. Susanna. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo. I'm gonna keep going and hopefully Lindsay put it in the chat. Good idea. And we can circle back if we don't see it. Erin. Abstain. Daniel. Abstain. Tim. Yes. Derek. Abstain. Judge Morrissey. Abstain, thank you. Rebecca. Yes. So we're just waiting on Lindsay's for that. So Lindsay, if I don't know if you can hear me, but just pop it in. There we go. Perfect. For the abstain. And that leaves us to the second question on citizen review boards or a statement, I would say. As a citizen review boards should have authority, a board should be able to review internal and external investigations and hold law enforcement leaders accountable. This would be a really good time to think about what the question is and decide whether or not you need further discussion. Okay, I see none. Elizabeth, back to you. Hi, Jessica. Yes. Jack. Yes. Sheila. Yes. Aton. Yes. Chief Stevens. I will abstain. Abstain. Susanna. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furfeau. I will continue on while you were putting that in the chat, Lindsay. Erin. Abstain. Daniel. Abstain. Kim. Yes. Derek. DOC abstains. Judge Morrissey. Abstain. Rebecca. Yes. Okay, and I see Lindsay, you're abstain. Mm-hmm. I'll put that down. So our next vote is about decoupling mental health. Dressing mental health should be explicitly separated from law enforcement practice. Instead, solutions for emergency mental health services should be explored. Local and external organizations are already exploring and attempting to implement them. Exploration of these solutions, coupled with political and financial commitment to these alternatives should be considered. Any discussion? I see none. Elizabeth, can you read it once more just so I can make sure I don't have any typos? Yeah. Decoupling mental health. Addressing mental health should be explicitly separated from law enforcement practice. Instead, solutions for emergency mental health services should be explored. Local and external organizations are already exploring and attempting to implement them. Exploration of these solutions, coupled with political and financial commitment to these alternatives should be considered. I vote yes. Jeffrey. I vote yes, but I'm not, it's a little deep question and it goes both ways, but I will vote yes. Fila. Yes. Nathan. Yes. Chief Stevens. Upstain. Tyler. Upstain. Susanna. I vote yes. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo. Hopefully we'll be in the chat. Erin. I'm staying. Thank you, Lindsay, for yours as well. Bye, Daniel. Upstain. Tim. Upstain. Sarah. Upstain. Judge Morrissey. Upstain. Rebecca. Yes. Eliminate SROs. Eliminating SROs is not new to Vermont legislature. Bills during the 2021 to 2022 session were introduced. The Vermont legislature should explicitly incentivize schools that replace their SRO programs with student social services, such as nurses, counselors, clubs, emotional, mental health, education, et cetera. Any discussion? Okay. Jessica. I vote yes, and I will put this in the chat right now. Jeffrey. Upstain. Fila. Yes. Etan. Yes. Chief Stevens. Yes. Upstain. Kuzana. I vote yes. Lindsay, for Jennifer Furpo in the chat. So Erin. Yes, I mean, sorry, I'm staying. I'm staying, okay. Upstain is hard for me to say. Upstain. Daniel. No. Tim. Upstain. Darren. Do you see upstains? Judge Morrissey. Upstain. And Rebecca. Yes. Lindsay, I see you're upstain in the chat. Oh, we only have three more votes, guys. Yeah. Limit officer quantity based on population. In a state with one of the lowest crime rates in the country, there may not be a need to have a quantity of law enforcement officers higher than the national average. The Vermont legislature should set a guideline to limit the amount of law enforcement officers in each regional scope per its relative population in relation to the national average. Any discussion? I see none. Hey, Jessica. I vote yes. Jeffrey. Yes. Pula. Yes. A-tone. No. And the reason I vote no is because there are operational issues that cannot be foreseen that may impact the number of officers that are necessary. Chief Stevens. I say no. That it's up to the community. And even if you hired more police, maybe it'll reduce the workload and mistakes on other police and maybe to increase more people of color officers. Like I said, it may be reduced some of the workload. I'll stay. Susanna. I'm gonna vote no. Not because I think that we should try to artificially maintain a certain minimum number of police just because we say we want to, but I think that the issues we're having are more matters of quality and not quantity. And so I'm gonna vote no on this because I'm not certain that this is as impactful a solution as say, making other improvements to the ways in which the existing force behaves. Thank you. And Lindsay, I see you're no. Good chat. Thank you. Aaron. Stan. Daniel. I'm a big no on that one. Tim. No. Derek. I'm Stan. Judge Morrissey. I'm Stan. Rebecca. Yes. For second to last, reinvest in human services, community centered responses. The savings earned by limiting law enforcement officer quantity should be reinvested in community centered response initiatives and human services, addressing criminality and especially the disparities that already exist must be a multi-pronged effort. Any discussion? I have a question for the group. Do we see this as being inextricably linked to the previous one? That is to say, savings from reduction in police force, if we don't, you know what I'm asking? Yes, I understand that if you're not going to limit officer quantity based on population, then the savings that this question proposes are not going to be there. Therefore. Also, in my mind, if I didn't agree with limiting law enforcement, I would vote no on this, but I do agree that we should put more resources into human services and community centered responses. So the way it's written, I'd have to say no, but if that limiting the law enforcement was out there, I would vote yes. Well, that's how I feel. Sorry, Tom, go ahead. No, that's okay. I have to say, Elizabeth's rendition of this issue in that section of the report is very accurate. And I think you all just need to know that. It's not like something got lost in translation is what I'm saying. It seems to me like if somebody voted no to the one beforehand, it actually makes more sense to vote abstain than to vote yes or no. Correct. Agreed. I guess that's just a recommendation. Do people feel ready for a vote or? Right. Any more discussion? I'm just kind of curious if Elizabeth, when you say that is the assumption that people who are abstaining because it's related to the financial component specifically, is that why? Yeah, exactly because they decided to not support a limit and this question is specifically about what to do with the money that's left over from that support. Cool. I voted yes on the last one. I'm voting yes on this one. Jeffrey. I abstain. Sheila. Yes, and I just want to say that even if there wasn't money from the other question that I still think that we should do it. So yes. Okay. Eitan. Abstain. Chief Stevens. Abstain. Abstain. Susanna. I vote yes on this one. I do not see that as in conflict with my no vote on the previous one. I think any cost savings that we incur either from intentionally reducing the force or letting it drop by efficient should be reinvested in this manner and that even if there's no savings from reduction in force, we should still make every effort to find the money to do this either way. Thank you. Lindsay, I see you're abstain. Erin. Abstain. Daniel. Abstain. Tim. Yeah, I appreciated Susanna's explanation when I explained this to the Executive Committee of State's Attorneys. They sort of interpreted it to mean if there is, they were opposed to a reduction in the manner of the prior, but if there was going to be, then it should certainly be invested in an array of areas. So because of that, I'm going to vote yes, even though it appears in conflict with the prior. Erin. Do you see abstains? Judge Morrissey. Abstain. Rebecca. Yes. Okay, this is our last question. De-coupling traffic stops. Vermont Statues currently restrict traffic enforcement activity to law enforcement. Traffic laws are still laws that would require enforcing. However, the report identifies, the reports, excuse me, identify traffic stops as a negative interaction between police and the community that exasperates disparities and furthers the divide in the community law enforcement relationship, especially with people of color. The legislature should make an exception to towns seeking to explore alternative ways to enforce traffic laws. For example, the town of Browborough has made a commitment to considering operational alternatives if they become legal in Vermont. Any discussion? Don't see any. Jessica. I vote yes. Yes. Sheila. Yes. Etan. Yes. Chief Stevens. I'm going to abstain, but I want to also make a statement that I don't think that traffic tickets should be used to pay for the coverage of the police force because that provides an incentive to get people tickets and stop them. We've seen that in the news and things in the past. So I'm on the fence. So I'm going to, I'm going to abstain. Tyler. I'm going to abstain. Susanna. I vote yes. Thank you, Elizabeth, for going through this with us. Thank you. Lindsay for Jennifer Furpo in the chat. So I will move to abstain. I'm abstain. And I want to take a moment to thank Sheila and Witchie for putting together the report. Our abstention is not somehow calling out any lack of work or all of the learning you provided us. Really, really compelling presentations to the panel as well. So thank you all. Daniel. I'm going to abstain. Thank you. Tim. No. Derek. Abstain. And thank you, everyone, and for all the work that was reflected in the report and in this process. Judge Morrissey. Abstain. Thank you. And Rebecca. Yes. Yes. And Lindsay, I see you're abstain and I'm reporting it and then we're done. Okay. I need to see it, certainly. So if you can, in some magical technological way, get this to me, that would be really cool. The other thing I want to note here is those of you who were around for the 2019 report will recall that we had the non-consensus area, non-consensus reports. What this process does, and I'm kind of happy about it, is it makes that very specific for each question. All the way through the report. And I think that's important for the legislature to see. One of the broad outlines that they're going to notice, assuming they read it, is that the community members were very, very much behind almost everything with some variations. And there were a couple of things that people didn't have quite the same feeling about, but there was a very broad distinction between government and the community. The beauty of the RDAP is that it reveals those things. That is the beauty and the strength of this panel. And if, and I'm sure at some point I'll be called on to testify when this is submitted, you can be certain that I will point that out. And I will make a point of also saying to the legislators, they need to look at the vote counts, and they need to see who is what to get a really good picture of what goes on in the state. All right? I am gonna do, sometime tomorrow, God only knows when, I will do one last make it pretty effort to edit. I will put in what Judge Morrissey has asked to have in a certain spot. I will make the move that the Attorney General has asked for. But that's really it. And I don't know if I find straight, I have to admit I've gotten goggle-eyed. I mean, I feel like for me, this report has turned into Rocky Horror, right? Where you sit there and you like can say the whole movie. And that's kind of how this report has become for me at this point. So that doesn't actually make me the best copy editor, but I will do what I can. Got lots of experience in life doing it. And I will submit it on the 15th, first thing in the morning. Chief Don. I had a quick question Anton. Do you think it's worthwhile to show her capita what the incarceration rate is for minorities in the state in at least attached to the reporter? When I was talking to Jessica, I think she was surprised about how many Native Americans in the state of Vermont, her capita were incarcerated. And most people don't realize that, but I don't know if it makes sense, but I just thought I would at least mention would that be important information or not? I don't see why it can't go into an appendix. Why not? Might just give the legislators a little insight per capita what the rates are just so they know who's affected and how. And as Susanna has just pointed out in the chat, I think if we have the data, there's zero harm in including it. The one thing I will ask, oh, you're not where I thought you were. Okay, you've like gone away altogether. God, this is such a fun process. Can someone write, oh, there you are. Hi, you moved, nevermind chief. Can you write that? What was that, what was that, Anton? Can I write that? Can you write the appendix with this? Oh, I mean, I can provide the data. I'll work with Jessica. I think she might already have it. That would be great. That would be great. I'm simply admitting I don't have time. And I hate saying that. You know I hate saying that. I want- I'm best, I work best with deadlines though. When will you need it by? I would like it by, let's move things. I'd like it by noon on the 15th. That would be- Okay. See you after tomorrow. I mean, yes. I'm happy to work with Chief Don. I mean, it's just gonna be probably one pager that collects the most current data we have from probably the DOC website and maybe another website. Yeah, cool. Jessica, I was just thinking of more of a chart. Just so they have a visual. Not elaborate, just a chart. And I'm just letting you all know the grammar stuff. I can't believe I'm saying this. I'm letting it go. I've gotten as much as I can, you know? Use the language as well as you can people. God bless and good luck. Love you all. Tim. I just wanted to say that I thought this process was exceedingly fair. I thought the chair did a phenomenal job of rallying everybody. Elizabeth, thank you. And the subcommittee folks, thank you. And you know, I just think it's difficult to rally this many folks in the report writing process and Sheila, same to you in which you're just putting a lot into the community piece. Once I looked through it and each of the different things, it was a lot of nuanced content in a pretty short report which is very difficult to do. Having weeded through my fair share of government reading our reports. So I think it's very helpful. I think the data at the end is a good idea. And I just wanted to thank the chair for his leadership and all this and to all the subcommittee folks. So thank you, Apipam. My pleasure and you all know I love you. So I give you all flowers if I had that kind of salary, but I don't. Elizabeth. Yeah, I was just gonna offer if you need any help especially with the JJ section, given the three different options in the vote or even tally, I did just send you the spreadsheet. Thank you. But if you need any help with any of that, I am definitely around and able to help. Okay. Okay. Cool and groovy. God, we did it. I've like lost my purpose for living now. I'm sorry. There's like, hold on, there's an agenda. I need to look at it. Your purpose for living continues on at least through Thursday. Yes, no. And well beyond that, Etan. Yeah, thank you. I just was like, oh my God, I just like been so focused on this. I can't, I'm like brain dead. All right, Susanna, it is now turned over to you. You are the next item. A discussion concerning staffing of another legislative body. Yes, thank you. This is gonna be super duper fast. So I was contacted for assistance in identifying potential people who could potentially be appointed to the Sentencing Commission and I could think of people maybe, but that's a hard one. It's a hard sell. And the first thing I thought was I should consult people who know things. So I wanted to bring it here. I also didn't really wanna make it hot. So this was not a huge public request that I sent out in an email to 600 people. But I did not just wanna pick names out of my brain and send that back to my inquirers. So I am humbly coming to you, chief. And the chat, the question is, what was the commission? It's the Sentencing Commission. So I'm humbly coming to you all with requests for if you have anyone you know who you think would be well suited. And by well suited, I don't mean a culture fit. I mean a culture add or a culture upturning of Apple cart, right? That's it. That's the pitch. I guess, I don't know. When do you need the spy? Yeah, great question. I guess by about three weeks ago. So whenever you can get through it. Can you, oh, hold on. Sorry, Sheila. I think you might've sent something out to us a month or so ago. Is this true or maybe not? And whether you did or not, is it possible to drop in the chat what the asks are of this committee? Like how often do they meet, et cetera, et cetera? Or is there more description? So that if we're thinking about potential candidates to give to you, I know they're gonna ask me more questions. Oh my gosh, sorry. Yes, but also ignore everything I just said for the last three minutes. It's not the Sentencing Commission. It's the parole board, my bad. Susanna, you got me very excited. That's a huge difference. Are you sure? Don't be mad. Somebody gave you food. Are you sure, Susanna? No, sorry. I've been given food during this meeting. Now my blood sugar spiked. I don't know what I'm talking about. There it is. It is the parole board. Several seats are coming up. Kind of at the same time. So we're not necessarily looking for one name. Sorry, big whoops. But the request still stands. And yes, Sheila, I can send along some more info. Yeah, thank you. I wanna know what they do and stuff so I can think of who might be a good fit. I mean, I guess like go online and do that. I don't need you to do that. I'm sorry. I'm old. I forget about websites. Listen, I'm asking y'all for a favor. I can send you the info. That's the least I can do. Okay. And should we get back to you just individually, send you an email and such? That would be perfect. Thank you. Okay. And is there any information you can tell us about the parole board now? Or what is it again now? It is the parole board. Is there any information you can currently give us? Like their terms or how many people are on it? What is currently the racial makeup? I presume that they're all people who live in Vermont. Is there any just brief details that you could give us? Yeah, I wanna, let me put all of that together in just a super quick blurb. Thank you, Erin for putting the link to the board in the chat. I can tell you that multiple seats are coming up at the same time. So there are gonna be multiple openings and the other details, I'll try and put them together into quick, easy bullet points for you. Thank you. This is Rebecca, did you mention the deadline of getting these names in? Yeah. Yeah, so in particular, let me see, the seats are coming up, actually, there are two terms expiring at the end of February. And I think that there's potentially a third one that's coming up around the same time. So I think that the appointer would like to have some options, I guess in the next couple of weeks to prepare for that, so that there's a seamless transition. Again, I was asked this already some time ago and of course, it's not really fair to load a last minute request onto you all, but yeah, if maybe in the next week you can just advance me any names that you think may be good. Great. Anything else, folks, about this? Okay, cool, thank you, Suzanna. Sheila, now we're on to you, the discussion concerning recent events in Burlington, Vermont. Oh, that's really great. I actually, well, two things, I actually wanted to see if Reverend Mark Hughes wants to speak upon that, if he's still in the space, which at least he is. And then after that, if we could turn to community who is on here to make sure that there isn't any questions or thoughts from the community on anything that we discussed today, to make sure there's an opportunity before we close out the meeting. So Reverend Mark Hughes, would you like to talk about some things that are going on? Thanks, Sheila. I'm not feeling well tonight, so I'm gonna stay off camera and it's gonna blow your mind, but I'm gonna be really brief. I think that one of the things that we've been looking at lately is, of course, the ACLU, everybody saw the litigation. And really what it goes to is a couple of things that, because for those who are not familiar with the issue, there was a young man who's in our circle back a couple of two or three years ago had a situation where his mother who was, she's a middle-aged white woman who's an African-American mixed-race child. And she found out that he was shoplifting and called the police and that just turned south really, really quickly. And it ended up with him in handcuffs and being ultimately sedated with catamine and carried out of his house. So that's one of the challenges and it's just there's so many layers that go into it from her calling the police in the first place but also there's just generational story about the DCF and the disproportionate rate in which young black children are being removed from their homes and it gets into a use of force, it gets into the administration of catamine and situations like that and what are the rules there and it just goes on and on with police oversight and so forth. It's just a really complex challenge and so we were speaking out on that in a number of different ways. I think it is, this is probably a good place to have that conversation and also to talk about solutions. And to find out where we have, where are our challenges and where do we have room to make appropriate adjustments so we don't have to see things like this again and moving forward. And I told you that I was gonna blow your mind because I'm done. That's all I'm gonna say for right now. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. And thank you, Sheila. I, what pops to mind immediately for me is the part of the report that Wichee and Sheila wrote that refers to, oh God, the Civilian Review Boards. That's what immediately comes to mind is that and that that will go forward in the next couple of days. I wish we had time to add on a little something in the report about this, but we don't. But I'm hoping that that will come through and I want that in the minutes. Anybody else? Comments? Excuse me, this is a bit out of line, Mark. You might wanna get in touch with me. I'm after 10 years on the ACL board. Now I can talk about it because I've been off just before this happened. I responded the next day after this incident and I have a lot of intel and a huge amount of anger. Yeah. Yeah. Can I add, this is Rebecca. Aitana, I appreciate you tying this into our sort of looking back report, but maybe to not let this fall off. I think when we go into our post-report mode. Yes. You know about identifying what are our priority items, drop-down projects for this panel for the coming year and I would encourage us to consider adding this or again, maybe teasing out specifically issues that we want to address, maybe bigger than this case. So maybe this is case, but whatever, to add that to that list. Got it. Thank you. Will do. Will do. Anything else from anyone on this? That was good. Thank you. Okay. Did Rebecca invite community members to have input? Well, that was where I was going next. I was about to announce that, yes. I would just say I would echo most of what Reverend Marquee said, that the things that jump out for me that, you know, maybe the training discussion of the report and maybe the review board, but I don't hear anything talking about escalation and de-escalation. And a lot of the stories in the Burlington area that we've heard and national stories often seem to center around police who escalate a situation rather than de-escalate it. And it feels like that needs some attention. And the other thing was, I feel like I heard a year or two ago that there was some discussion of policy around the use of ketamine and it feels like that ought to get some attention as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Marquee. I knew I couldn't be quiet. I just, I really want to speak to just, there's a compassionate part of this that just goes into these youth. Because this, well, first of all, this child was removed from his home when he was five months old and separated from his siblings and they were dispersed across the state. It's just such a sad story, the whole thing. And just how, you know, here, you know, this woman who's struggling to raise this child and she's culturally challenged. And she just, you know, she didn't know what to do but to call the police. She didn't know better. And so there's that piece, you know, you just don't want to call the police. You know, if you want to do everything you can do to avoid that, you know, if you're dealing with a black or a brown youth, there's that. So I guess what I'm saying is, is there's a, there's a, you know, cultural competency component to, first of all, to, you know, taking a child in that's, you know, you know, that's a, that's a black or a black or brown child, you know. We're also, these children are gonna go, you know, there's this, there's this vicious system that is removing youth from their homes and they are being removed. You know, at highly disproportionate rates, black and brown children, they are. And they're, and those are the facts. Those are the numbers. And there's, where are they gonna go? Where they go is they're gonna, obviously they're gonna, most of them are gonna go to white families. So, you know, exploring, you know, I've had some conversations with a couple, two or three folks, but we're exploring alternatives. How do we figure out ways in which we can provide safety nets for some of these black and brown youth that are being raised in these white homes, as well as assistance to some of these white parents that are, that are tasked with these, these awesome responsibilities with these youth. They need help. They need help. And so I think that's the compassionate side that I'm looking at is, is, you know, putting together those programs and services that assist these youth as well as these parents. So we can, not just so we can avoid this, but so these youth can actually thrive at the end of the day. I don't know if this is relevant. Um, let me know what I can do. I, uh, most people don't know this, but until I came to my current family, I was in the system. I was in 21 foster homes between the ages of eight and 13. If there's something I can do, I have a lot of experience, I guess it's the best thing to say. And, uh, let me know. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. I want to keep it short because I know we have two and a half minutes. Oh, go ahead, Derek. Was the invitation to anything else specifically connected to this conversation or was that just a general for the good of the order or anything else? I'm sorry, to what are you referring? The invitation to anything else. Was that just an open call for any other quick announcements or any other points of relevance or was it part of the thread of the conversation that we were just having? I believe it was part of the thread. Okay, then I'll un-raise my hand. Okay. All right. Uh, we've been asked to testify. This is, you're going to all get really pissed off just so you know. There are two bills that are like 65 pages long. Tim, what are the bills again? H and at, H what? H and X, I think one of them is 645. Yes, that is one. 543, I don't know the other one. 543. Okay. I think it's H534. Oh, well, oh. No, I know, I know just for the record. Have those little dyslexic moments, okay. Martin Lalonde wants our input. He is literally putting off the vote on this in committee until he gets input from the ARDAP. Now I made an executive decision because we had this in front of us, the report. And I was like, Martin, I'm sorry, we've got a statutorily required bit of work that has to happen now. And I was a bit annoyed that we didn't find out about it until really about a week ago. Literally the last week in which we were working on the report. I mean, there was just no, I'm gonna get yelled at no matter what and I don't really care, but there just was no way of doing this. Now, they still want our feedback. I don't know what's gonna happen tomorrow. I am not, 534 is tomorrow at one. Is there anyone here who wants as a representative of the ARDAP to go to that? I don't. And I don't because I don't feel, I don't feel that I was really quite prepared. I was busy working on the report. Tim. No, and I'm not volunteering for that. Just this is one of those topics. And I'm sure Rebecca has a similar thought where I know Rebecca and I have both testified on 534. And I, because my department has testified extensively for many hours on both those bills, I wouldn't want to get in the way of the ARDAP or community members on the ARDAP stating positions on this, but I would have to, my position would be distinct probably and my hours of testimony on both topics are kind of speaking for themselves if that makes sense. Well, and that's a good point, Tim, is that again it's back to that, the inherent and productive split on the panel between community members and governmental actors. So, but what it does mean is a lot of reading really quickly. I don't want to pursue it further right now because he wrote me an email this afternoon and I'm trying to remember what it was all about, but it's like, I can testify next week about 645, the restorative justice bill. Would you all do me the courtesy of getting back to me about opinions about this thing? You know what we've done this before, what you want me to testify about, what you want me to say. People write little, you know how we've done this, people write paragraphs and I go in and I string them together in an interesting way and bring out major themes and all that sort of stuff and I will do that again. But that needs to, okay, hold on, that needs to, we need to at least deal with that. Susanna, you had your hand up and then Erin had her hand up. Yeah, I am, I'm sorry this isn't exactly the question that you're asking. The question you're asking is what do we want you to talk about in the context of these two bills, but honestly I'm alarmed at the number of relevant bills that this panel has not been asked to testify on. Just top of the dome, there's S195, they're talking about the Big 12 expansion, they're talking about interrogation practices, they're talking about getting earned time from educational programs in carceral settings. They're talking about ankle monitors, I mean, it is a lot happening right at retail, there's so much and I'm worried that we're being pitch and bold onto these two bills when there's a lot of really alarming things that are moving super quickly in these committees of jurisdiction and so I guess if I have to directly answer your question because I know you don't like it when we don't do that, I would say we should be represented on both of these bills and a plethora of others. ORE has been tracking a bunch and I'm happy to send a list with links and a quick write up to each one because we came prepared tonight to talk about some of them if necessary, but I know each of you individually has also been following these bills on your own and I don't think that our parallel individual presence is the same as the unified ARDAP presence so I think that's a conversation we really have to have and sadly there is very little time to have it. Yeah, I am not, you should know I had a fit, I like yelled a lot and have been promised that a conversation will take place about how to get this stuff before the ARDAP in a timely and reasonable fashion. I said, well, that's nice because we had that conversation last session and here we are. As I say, I was not the most politic that I might have been but I didn't feel like I was needed to be politic at that moment. You will also note on the agenda a new item and that is going to be henceforth and forevermore part of the all agenda relevant and known policy updates, hyphen legislative moves, et cetera. This is because, excuse me, I'm getting over a cold. Actually RSV and this is just going to be part of it because this keeps happening and I have a lot of ideas about why I don't have proof necessarily so I'm not going to put that out there to be put into public minutes because it will simply potentially be libelous but I, this has got to stop. It's simply got to stop. Chief. Thanks for all your work, Antoine, Eitan. I just want to say that if they're going to start having people do a lot of testimony they should allow ARDAP to have a staff member or something to go through these things because like I said, I have hardly enough time to be on this panel let alone be doing a lot of tests and I think I'm not the only one, right? We do have full-time jobs and nobody's getting paid for it and they're asking a lot but I think if they're really wanting a lot of input going forward on a lot of these things they need to provide that space and that staff to do it because some of these things you don't want to half-ass, right? You don't want to just throw out there and testify for the sake of testifying. Well, and when I first put this out there, chief witchy got mad. I mean, witchy was like a two-day turnaround on 65 pages. Are you kidding for what they give us for per diem? No. Well, and you can also tell them. I mean, I think based on open meeting law I mean, if you want to speak for their ARDAP you have to have a meeting and you have to make a discussion and vote on it. I mean, there's not even time to do any of that stuff, right? If you're really asking somebody to represent an entire committee, I mean... Anyway, you also got to be careful not to get in trouble by just saying oh, okay, just everybody send me this stuff and nobody's had discussions or voted on it. No, I know. I totally understand that and I don't want to just brush that off. I'm at the moment sitting around and feeling guilty but I really didn't feel like I... I was in a bad spot. I made a judgment call. That's all I can say. It may have been wrong. I'm sorry. But I don't know what else I could have done at that moment. We had a report to get done. Yeah, no, no, don't be sorry. I'm just saying that we got to be careful that somebody doesn't violate and open meeting laws and all that stuff to make decisions without having decisions. Well, and there's that. You're absolutely right. We used to do that. We're not doing that anymore. So we got a problem. And I'll deal with it tomorrow. I'll deal with it. I will see. I just wanted to also say like, I think in statute, RDAP is limited in the number of times it can meet, which is another negative pressure on our ability to discuss things as they come up. So maybe worth reminding the legislative folks that I believe there is a limit. I think when I first joined the RDAP, there was a lot of material that you said 10 times, right? Yeah. We've never listened to it. Mark, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, no worries to apologize. I just want to just suggest that if, if there's. Well, first of all, just let me beat up consummate state or of the obvious. The guy that calls out to mounts the elephant in the room is the most of the system representatives. That are on this committee. You, you guys have folks that are showing up in these. In these committees and testifying. On these bills that we're talking about. And, you know, at a minimum, maybe it would be productive for, for you to kind of. Link up with the folks that are speaking on your behalf in those committees and bring that. I mean, if we can't push from this committee, from this panel out into your respective areas at a minimum, bring back what they're testifying to into this body. Because, you know, these, it's not like us and them. You know, everybody on here, you've got mostly everybody on here and I know, because I read the, I read the notes. You've got folks that are showing up in those committees and, you know, they're part of your department. So, yeah, there's a process thing that, that needs to be worked out here. And, you know, I'm, I'm unapologetic about just calling that out because I think it really needs to be talked about. Yeah. And I, I, I just kind of. Yeah, people were a little alarmed that I was as angry as I was, but I was like, what did you expect? So, Aaron. Yeah, I think it's, this is a tricky problem that we need to solve, which is how do we get the art apps voice to the legislature and when the legislative session moved so quickly and the our depth simply does not have the resources to be able to move as quickly as the rest of us who work in big powerful government offices can and we're all invited to those tables to testify by we, I mean, the government stakeholders. So I think it is an important problem for us to figure out how to solve. I don't think aton you need to apologize for anything. Your hands are tied. I don't know what you would have done on short notice. And I don't want the legislature to get the message that like the art app is just, you know, like we can't weigh in. It's more about we need a fair process so that we are able to weigh in. And I would say that those of us who are closely involved with all of these bills, we should be coming who are on the art app. We should be coming to the art app in November. I should have come to this body in November. I knew about age 645. I love age 645. Yes, it's a 65 page bill, but I'll distill it this way. It's to expand pre-charged diversion across the state of Vermont. There's a bunch of pages in there that Derek could talk to, but essentially that's what it is to create a pre-charged diversion program across the state. And by that, I mean a restorative approach that diverts people from the legal system earlier. This is all to say, one process would have been, I bring this to the art app in November, say heads up working on this bill. I want you all to know about it. I'll keep you in the loop. You'll probably hopefully be asked to testify and we figure out who for the art app is going to testify who can bring the community voices to the legislature. And so I don't know what we do about this session in particular, but I think moving forward, that's a process that is really important for the art app to figure out. I think moving forward this session, what I'm going to do, I have Nader Hashim is a friend and I'm going to get in touch with him and say Nader, we've got to have a lot of conversations after, before crossover, because there's a lot that you're going to be dealing with that I need to bring to the panel. So that's, that's the solution. The only thing I can think of for this session at this point, but it's not perfect. I admit Rebecca. On that note about proposing solutions for this session. Oh my gosh. I'm going to try to be even more speak a few more words. I have proposed since we already have this standing agenda item for next month or second Tuesday of March. We try to identify the bills because I want to second what Susanna Davis just shared. It is alarming. Absolutely alarming. The bills that are being last minute drop. So I appreciate that some bills may have some advance notice by some who are supporting it back in November. And there's some miss how many weeks in on a second year by any which is radically trying to change our criminal justice system radically expanding and making prosecutions easier on substance drug offenses. Right. Areas that directly impact racial disparities. We're just getting those changes now. My proposal is we try to scramble this session because as Mark said, we do have the benefit of a number of us on this panel having and being in their respective positions. We know which ones have racial disparity impacts. Think and bring that forward and actually identify them for next month's agenda. Yeah. Get the information and I don't know how we want to do it. We all could contribute to share what the positions are, what the interests are, and maybe we can take a vote then or not. Let's if you've got a bill, you've got access to it. I'm sure everyone does because we all have computers. Send it. You don't need to send it to me. There doesn't need to be a middleman. Just send it out to the entire panel. Send it out. Chief. Yeah. The last thing I'll say what worried me a little bit when you said they're actually holding up a vote. In order to get information from us. We also don't want to be used as some sort of. Escape go why they're not doing something or why something to get didn't get done or meet, meet some sort of criteria. So I'm just saying we have to be very careful too that. You know, it's great to have a voice, but. If it's holding up things to waiting on us and we can't do it. We don't want people getting upset at us for not doing something. They. Trust me, they won't, but yes, you're right. You're you're absolutely right. Yeah, so I have a lot of thoughts about this that I really can't put into verbalizations right now, but today, for example, I spent 12 hours. My full-time job doing things over the legislature coordinating with 14 separately elected states attorneys. And I also show up on this board. And. That's why I want to sort of say that I appreciate that we're having this conversation, but I'm currently tracking over 190 bills. That have an impact on the criminal or juvenile justice system. And so it isn't like there's a few, there's a lot, particularly this session as Rebecca has pointed out. And I have serious limitations as to the ability to freely communicate with with folks when I also I'm trying to figure out on a daily basis, legislators constantly reaching out to me. Hey, what are the states attorneys thing about this thing about that? Then communicating that to another group is a hard thing for me to even conceptualize. So I'm happy to come up and chat. I might be greatly limited in some of my ability to engage here. And you might see testimony where you see that with your due respect to my good colleague, Aaron Jacobson, where even states attorneys in a jail may not be on the same page and that's okay. That's a part of the process, but just wanted to flag that I'm always like the person in the room saying it's hard when you have like a big group that I try to work with. But I would be greatly limited in some of this not to be obstructionist, but just because it's my job has some innate hurdles that are kind of built into it. So thank you for that. I do have to run in a second. No, we all we all really kind of do the next meeting is the 12th of March. We're going to we obviously know what we're going to be doing. We're going to be working on these bills. And I want to thank you for the discussion we've just had because I know exactly what I'm going to say tomorrow. I know exactly what I'm going. Yeah, no, I'll have a little something beforehand. Anyway, thank you all. Does anyone want to make a motion? This is the part where Jessica always gets annoyed. Oh, for the love of God. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion. Okay. Do I sound annoyed? No. I'm annoyed because it's eight 20. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. You know what I mean? Remember last month when I was like, does anyone mind? You were like, okay, we're done. Bye. I'll make a motion to adjourn. I'll second it. Bye. Bye. Good work. Thank you.