 I'll open it back up for discussion. So good afternoon. Welcome to the House of District Committee. We are back on H546 and act relating to racial justice statistics. We just had a walk through, well, before we went to the floor of draft 6.1 and we are joined the committee, committee discussion. We do have it scheduled committee discussion and possible vote. So why don't we open it up for questions? I don't see Eric here, but yeah, sure. I think I made myself clear as to where I stand with this bill. But no one has told me that, I mean, I think gathering these statistics and data is very important whether we're talking about racial justice statistics or any other minority group throughout the state of Vermont. We've talked about starting the division, a cost that goes with it and maybe the cost will go down later on down the road. Maybe it wasn't, but I don't want to start 10 different divisions for 10 different entities that we need to have the data and statistics on. So, and I don't see in this bill which I do want to support where it says down the road. Okay, after we finish the study of the racial justice and continue gathering those statistics, then we're not gonna start incorporating these other much needed statistics and data throughout the state that we need rather than starting eight, nine, 10 more divisions. If we go one start, is that what we're looking at here folks or because that's my concern here is one division clearinghouse for everybody. A few things. We can't, this legislature can't find another legislature like we can't tell a future legislature, you're gonna do this. You correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, I think that's what I was hearing from you. You know, we can talk about it and put it in the record that we, you know, that's the path we'd like to take, but in terms of anything we've passed, we can't find the future legislature. I'm gonna, while we're talking, I'm gonna go find a council state government's justice for investment to report because in making its recommendations and evaluating the legislature and justice for investment to one author for quite a while, they were justice for investment. One takeaway though, one of the recommendations was to look at racial disparities and data collection in Vermont. And so that's, you know, I don't know the side of that. And, you know, the same thing that came up with ceiling this morning, that, I mean, it's clear there are racial disparities or, you know, severe racial disparities in Vermont and that when we pass legislation that doesn't mention anything about racial disparities just by changing our laws like defilmization or ceiling records, it will begin to change. In other states, it has begun to change and mitigate those racial disparities. And again, going back to council state government that really is something that they recommended. So I do see this as a very important part of our work in this committee. And so if I could add a couple of things. So the Office of Racial Equity is charged with a broader mandate as far as collecting data. But this is a subset certainly of the data that that office should be collecting. But this is one of the priority areas that we need to collect the data in part because of what justice reinvestment has recommended. But it does not mean at all that what is learned in this process and what is put together as a database collecting this criminal justice data can't be essentially a roadmap for collecting other areas of data. That's one point. The other point is that we do talk a lot about racial, the racial justice components of it, but inherent in the data we're collecting we're gonna be finding out about for instance geographic disparities that we have in our state. I think that's very important as well. So the data we're gonna be collecting is going to be informing us broader, I think than just that one area of disparity. And it's gonna give us the start on being able to fulfill that obligation or mandate of the racial justice equity office. So in the justice reinvestment report, the final report January 6th, then we'll have page numbers so I can't tell you the page. Then we'll go to page 48 talks about Vermont facing ongoing challenges related to the collection analysis and use of racial disparity data. Among the things that they recommended is collecting analyzed sentencing data statewide as well as by judicial district, invest in staffing and system improvements necessary to increase future data collection and analysis capacity, identify opportunities to publish racial disparity data including an annual report to benchmark and monitor progress, engage impacted communities in the collection of quantitative and qualitative data as well as the development and implementation of racial disparity related policy changes. And then it also specifically says two additional efforts will help Vermont address disparities at other points in the system. And they named specifically the office of racial justice statistics proposed by the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel, RDAF. In other words, the bill that we're dealing with here they essentially they have endorsed that as an important step. So and justice reinvestment is, I mean, yes, the council state governments was really helping and was behind that but any recommendations ultimately have to be proved by the justice reinvestment group which includes administration, includes the courts, state's attorneys, defenders, victims, advocates, et cetera, I tried legislators. So that's part of the why this seems like good idea. So the justice reinvestment is gonna be our not moving forward, it's our Bible, it's our instruction booklet, whatever they say is that what we're gonna be doing in the future. Oh, well, they made a number of recommendations and that was one of them. I knew probably can comment more or you were more involved in that whole process of actually. And whether it's our Bible, I don't know but certainly it's important guidance recommendations that the working group adopted and only heard the report one first week we were back on the Chief Justice chair, the justice reinvestment to working group spoke to our committee and then we heard from council state governments. So I do think it's very important work and that we should follow, we certainly can't do it all, it's a big list but this still really does play a big part of that in realizing that work. We haven't, I can't forget any exact field but I know that in terms of collecting other data and help me members, I don't know so there was the sexual assault there was there we had collection of data in other bills that we passed in different places. Hate crimes, right? Hate crimes bill, look for data but we do from time to time recognize what data is needed and task different agencies support and submissions with collecting that data so we can make best policy decisions. Anybody else? Thanks. Thank you. To get back to Bob's thought just as committee members to committee members having a discussion about the future in the best of all worlds, we would hope that our predecessors or the folks that follow after us would build on the work that we're doing because that makes the best sense. Now, we know things that make sense always don't happen but that being said, I would agree with you Bob. I mean, we've done some good work here we've taken some great testimony and this as a foundation is pretty monumental for Vermont because there's not a lot of states doing what we're going to attempt to do and this could be one of those pieces to the puzzle that helps bend the curve on Vermont being even more welcoming than it is today. And I really believe that, otherwise you couldn't get up in the morning if you couldn't hope that we're all working towards that same end. So that's just my thought. And we'll get there. Thank you. Sure. I guess going forward would certainly be my hope and Martin kind of touched on it that and I think coached it too that we ever did anything like this again around statistics and data gathering that we do follow a path because we had a path to follow, to start to follow from again, human services back a number of years ago and it didn't happen. And I think more by accident than anything we ended up doing some similar legislation. So I guess again going forward I would hope and there's no way to guarantee it again from legislature to legislature and you get 10 years apart doing something, 12 years apart, people are gone and people forget but that would be my hope that we can use this information gathering as a template of some kind. And if we do, it doesn't matter what committee I think committee does more similar legislation if we use it as a template. That wasn't as far as this bill to start for various reasons. And a lot of it had to do with how big the panels were in the boards and that type of thing. And I really think we did the right thing by knocking the board down from 20 to seven. Yeah, we were inclusive. I mean, we had everybody who was anybody potentially on the board, but if you think about it, I mean, we're a committee of 11 and that's a big committee in this building, 11. And if you go to things like judicial rules or nomination or retention and boards around the building that we have like that, they're five to seven, maybe a nine in there somewhere. But so I think seven is the right number to have a, you know, a good, robust conversation, you know, about the issues at hand. And I think with that list of liaisons, with who's on the board and that list of liaisons, I think all the information that we need to pass around is going to get to where it needs to go into our statistics database. So I just really think that's the right number. And as far as the other, I forget the name of the boards or commissions or whatever, but going from five to three, but if you look at things like a cannabis board or a liquor board and boards like that, there's three on there. And then I think the precedent has been set as far as a leadership, you know, a board goes for, you know, divisions or departments or whatever. And one thing I was really glad to see and maybe it happened before this and I didn't pick up on it. You know, it wasn't a big issue for me, but I know it was for some, is that this is back under the office of racial or not back under, it's now under the office of racial equity, you know, in the jurisdiction of Susanna. And I think that's a great thing. I think everybody needs somebody to oversee them, you know, especially if they don't make it. I don't think you can have boards or commissions and, you know, entities like that that don't have anybody to answer to. So, yeah, you know, along with knocking everything down, it's gonna cost us $260,000 less or something like that, which is kind of, I was gonna guess that's what it was gonna be by knocking off, you know, the two paid members of the board and a lot of the stipends. But again, I just think we did the right thing. I think it's gonna be a good streamlined product that we have and I think it's really gonna work better for efficiency. Well, I would entertain a motion to approve draft 6.1 of H546 and continue our discussion, but I was like, folks, are ready to vote? So? Give us a second. Okay. Thanks. Any more discussion? I guess from where I said, I just feel like we keep getting more and more information about the racial disparities that exist in our current system. And in my mind, this is a really important necessary step in order for us to be able to have a foundation of information that we can be working with so that we can build policy that can directly address the areas that we're experiencing the greatest disparities. And I feel like without something like what we have in front of us, we're just continuing to sort of stumble around in the dark and it's not working. So I'm excited about the bill that's in front of us and I look forward to voting in support of it. Yeah. And I remember council state governments saying, Vermont, you are a leader in doing this work. They are a leader and hope that other states would see this working and start doing the work in their states. Sure. So I mean, I'll reiterate that the racial data and disparity information is a critical part of this, but I don't want to lose the fact that this data is going to tell us a lot about our criminal justice system and not just with respect to racial disparities. By virtue of collecting this information, we're certainly going to find out about that, but we're going to find out how things are working in different courts throughout the state. We're going to find out how people are being diverted or not being diverted according to what kind of underlying offenses they are, in addition to the racial disparities that might be involved. And this is going to be a wealth of really important broad data for us to do our work, including critically, but any kind of disparities that the data will uncover. So we're very excited about the bill. Right. Yeah, I remember this morning when this is said, we live in a country that doesn't collect data. I was really, I don't know if other people heard that, but I think that was really interesting. And so Barbara. So for sure, over the years and recently, we have heard when we did the hearings to, it was a last biennium, we did hearings on this, a similar bill, right? And it's concerning and disturbing what's happening to people in our state. And so this bill is, you said so eloquently a moment ago, is going to be what we need to help sort of, help us to see how this is happening here because it's easy to not think it's happening here. And even in the meeting when CSG shared with us data, we had some of our colleagues in the Senate saying, oh, but like there is a mistake. Like you don't want to believe that this is happening. And yet this happening to our colleagues, our constituents. And so I'm really glad that our community is moving this. It's beyond time. And it's, it is what we need to help make change. Any, anybody else? Then the clerk shall commence to call the roll please. Colburn? Yes. Honolay? Yes. Postlat, yes. But I might change on the floor. LaLonde? Yes. Doppler? Yes. Norse? Yep. Noa? Yes. Rachelson? Yes. Christy? Yes. verdict? Yes. Brad? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Congratulations. Nice, nice work, everyone. Yeah, yeah. It's the end product. I can't even touch. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I did put the clerk's office on notice that we might have this reporter. Coach, sure. I'm not sure. For Martin. Martin, do you want to, do you want to share it? We can, we can do a, we can do a split script. Team. That sounds good, Cole. Yeah. I have some time because it'll go right to appropriations. Right. Correct? Yeah. Yeah. But I will, I think, so what, one of you will have to, I'll bring to, bring, you know, 6.1 to the, to the clerk's office. So Martin will do that since he's here, coach. And, great. Well, thank you. That was a lot, a lot of work. Appreciate it. Okay. One more thing. So do you have any news that's true? Should be on the community page as a forward email as well. Okay. Great. Yeah. So folks could, I think they'll be happy. I keep the numbers longer. 5.1 on today's committee. For sale? Well, yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah. Okay. 5.1. Okay. Great. 3.2, 5.1. Okay. So if folks could take a look at that, there are very few changes in there and we'll talk about it tomorrow, but I think most notable are the DUI went from 10 years to five years for the look back. There were some technical changes about removing the word, start putting the word in the ceiling. And I, yeah, so, so not much, but take a look at it. Amber has or we'll send it to the witnesses. But we do have it on our schedule for tomorrow afternoon. That's pretty physical copies for tomorrow morning. Great. Great. Sorry, where is the new draft? No, it's draft. Today's date under Michelle Child, I should say 5.1. Oh, yeah. Am I missing anything else? I'm gonna send you a draft later. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. Especially since we're done. Yeah, I can work on it. Okay. Great. Yeah. So, yeah. So we'll squeeze that in tomorrow as well. Selena, yes. Amber, did you say draft 5.1 for the ceiling bill? Yes. I'm just not seeing that on our page yet, but it could be just... I had to refresh. I'll meet you. What's that? I had to refresh. Yeah. I had to, I did refresh, but I'll try again. Okay. I'll go back to the link in the chat, telling you about the work. Well, we don't, yeah, let's not do it in the chat. Let's just keep refreshing and safely feel refreshed. Yeah, watch that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Actually, if we could go up.