 We are live. Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, January 18. And we are continuing our discussion on age 546 and actually relating to racial justice statistics. And our first witness will be Thompson from the Attorney General's Office. Good afternoon and welcome. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Julio Thompson. I'm an Assistant Attorney General Director of the Civil Rights Unit. I also am on the racial disparities advisory panel, which is already presented reports and testimony to the committee. I joined the, that panel or our DAP is it's known in the fall of 2021 after David share who was our offices designate had left the office to join the cannabis control board so I came to this subject relatively late in the process although I had attended some meetings before where they were discussing the needs to collect and compile and house and analyze racial disparities related statistics in the state. My angle on it has been a little bit different from at least some of the witnesses of my angle on it comes not from being someone who works in the criminal justice or juvenile system because I don't know that work in civil rights area. But I do have some prior and ongoing experience and similar projects that have been conducted in different parts of the country. Going back to a massive data project for Los Angeles County, involving the sheriff's department which has about 17,000 employees and houses about 20,000 people in the LA County Jail. As well as a similar kind of data analysis projects for the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington DC the Seattle Police Department. I am currently working on some some of these issues for the consent decree monitor for Newark, New Jersey. I am currently working on it for providing some technical assistance to the Department of Justice for the Baltimore Police Department can consent decree. Those projects really dealt with impacts as they were felt largely through policing but also through enforcement or probation and some housing for people who were confined to the jail system. I'm not and I come from it not from the standpoint of someone who's a data expert because I'm not a data expert but rather someone who really developed over time experience with systems analysis of this sort. And so that was the background that I brought, I think to the RDAB and, and I think it would inform the brief testimony that I would offer today, which is that I know last week I listened to the testimony about some of the finer details of what this office of statistics would do. I just want to point out a couple of things that weren't raised in the prior testimony or at least and emphasize some some things that were brought up. One thing I think my experience and kind of touching upon this area over the years is that you have to everyone and it needs to appreciate that this process is a slow process. And it takes a lot of work and a lot of energy. It is every project I've been involved in the people who are either mandating or agree that they're going to launch the project of course once the data wants to start parsing it. But oftentimes, this is really related to the second point. One reason that it's slow is that this process, which is such a healthy process will inevitably, unless Vermont is the soul out there. I've encountered will inevitably identify business practices, which don't quite meet with what the agency or department says it should be doing. Many departments in my, my past experience they have lots of databases that are designed to capture lots of data. And then and start compiling the databases and finding out how things are recorded you'll find that there are de facto business rules that arise where people don't find it efficient in their operations day to day to fill in all those fields. And so and they might have supplemental data that they keep on their own sometimes it's on paper. It's maybe of day to day use to that department or agency, but it's completely off the radar so to speak from it from a data standpoint. And so part of the data compilation processes that just getting copies, getting copies of databases and trying to translate them. That means field visits going to offices and asking people interviewing people and asking them how they keep records. Do some people you'll find that some managers keep additional data, but they keep it in Microsoft Word documents, not even spreadsheets and and those discoveries and they're always surprises are necessary part of finding out what's actually there and what can speak. To the analysts, what's actually going to be usable. It is. And so that's part of the that's part of the lengthiness of it. It is. So it is time consuming it takes a lot of work, but it's also terrifically healthy for the organization. Sometimes you will find in a given department or agency people on different floors, who wish they had data that the other person on the other floor is keeping and they had no way of knowing it, or they will use again paper driven systems log books. That will sometimes capture critical data that can still be used with appropriate caveats, but might be completely unknown to the executives on the top floor of a given building. So it's a terrific, it's a terrifically healthy process. There are lots of confidentiality statutes that come into play here and so those will have to be worked out between this bureau and, you know, the data experts and also the agency professionals who are there who have the obligation to maintain confidentiality. A lot of what's in the, the, the how of the data compilation that's in this bill and that was reflected in the our DAP report is pretty standard stuff, creating a data dictionary and all of that. It's a standard trade in terms of the how of data compilation, what's really the critical important policy questions, I think for the committee that here in the testimony are really the what and the why, and also the who. So what data are you going to collect, or do you want to start collecting and creating. Why you want to do that, and who's going to be involved in making those decisions. And this bill went one notable feature of the bill is that the council for the providing input on on that data collection is pretty big. It's, it's like 18 members it's very large. And I guess the only comment I could offer, or maybe hopefully beneficial perspective on at least some of the representation so there's quite a bit of community representation and including people who've who've been involved in juvenile justice or criminal justice on the receiving end. It's how important it is to keep those voices involved. My very first big project I mentioned earlier was Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. I worked there as a deputy monitor so I was a civilian monitor, looking at treatment of inmates and then the LA jail which at that time at 23,000 beds. And they had rudimentary data systems and they told us everything. We went into audit to see what they track but then we just, we went to all the different units and we talked to the people who resided in those units and found out that there was basically a shadow disciplinary system that was not on the books. And they had their own kind of consistent rules but they weren't actually being recorded anywhere in the system. So asking people who actually have had personal involvement in the systems I think can be really critical. It's not to say here that we'll have that kind of discovery in Vermont, but there may be aspects of how the systems administered in practice. That just is not is not showing up on the radar of the folks who are going to be compiling data. And also, you're likely to get better questions and a broader range of questions to ask of the data analysts once you do start amassing a pool of data and what directions to pursue or what disparities or issues to address where data is not being captured at all. And then the rest of the council level will work with the experts and figuring out, you know, what is what is doable, what achieve what's achievable and when. So, I think as you take testimony on aspects of the bill such as the membership of the council I just wanted to highlight that that the importance and I think the RDAF likewise felt for similar reasons I mean I brought my own experiences to bear on that but for similar reasons and I think that's important. The last thing I guess I would I would just raise and this is again a little bit on the technical side. And it's just something to elicit in the testimony because it came up last week, which is the issue about whether the data that's drawn from this bureau is a is public record or not. I think the intent. I'm guessing here but I think the intent probably was that the information that's provided by the agencies to the bureau doesn't lose whatever exemption it has by by virtue of being brought to the bureau as you know provide information, but that if that if that information were already public record and not exempt that it wouldn't suddenly become exempt. Once it enters into the bureau. I think that's it but but if it if there was something that under an MOU could retains its confidentiality. I wouldn't otherwise I think lose its public records exemption, because I think if that happens and it's likely you're going to have conflict about what records can be shared and what format if something that's held by professionals dealing with the juvenile justice system with this exemption from public records by going to a different branches state government. In fact that might jeopardize state or federal grants as well as compliance with federal law. I think that's the idea I think the, the other issue will be just how to treat the work product of the professionals there and I don't have an answer from our office about that we wanted to hear testimony more from different stakeholders and professionals about the sort of work product that they would create and whether that that would be subject to the public records law or not. So we don't really have a position at this time but I think that as it's drafted now I think the saying that the data that's collected is not a public record. It's probably not accurate I mean I think it is. If it's collected it is a public record then the question is just whether it's exempt or not. And if it had an exemption does it lose it or not and I think, at least in the our depth discussions I think we were thinking that something would lose its exemption and that would facilitate the sharing of information for data sharing agreements. That's a little bit maybe that's a kind of a couple of bridges I have had for the committee so I'll stop there and answer any questions or try to if anyone has any. Thank you. Thank you very much Julia. I appreciate you addressing the public records questions because we are going to hear from much counsel in a little bit because because we have heard we did hear testimony about that so so thank you. I see that Representative Richardson has a question. Go ahead Barbara. Thank you. So, so what I've got sort of two general themes of questions one is making sure that people are not. Well, let me put it this way remember a few years ago with law enforcement collection in Vermont. We had some issues with accuracy or people trying to make the numbers, make the data help them to look like they were doing okay. So, my, my first of two questions that that's okay madam chair is from your from your experience working in all these other municipalities which is amazing and do it's, it's great that we have you here. Do you have thoughts about that, because my second one kind of is tied to this. So, I mean I think part of the, you know, basically preventing either that the analysis of reporting of any analysis of data to essentially be a whitewashing exercise for the agency that's that's a concern for any kind of project where government either as Vermont is looking at it to doing it voluntarily or whether it's done in a compulsory way where it's part of a federal or state consent decree. It's important to to have that balance and also transparency so I think there are a couple of provisions and in here that do that one again is having diversity on the on the council which is basically going to be providing a lot of an assessment of, again, what what data are we collecting what we're doing with it and how we're interpreting that and that includes using outside experts so you've heard testimony already from a couple of non state actors like from the University of Vermont for example. So that's really important. For example, I'll give you a good example of that would be the Seattle police department I worked for the consent decree monitor for Seattle from 2013 until about 2017. And we were dissatisfied to so the federal monitor reports to the judge who has the case the consent decree and enforces it through contempt orders and we were concerned that the city at that time was not was overly optimistic about the data they had what they could report what they could use for what was that what was called an early intervention system which was a way of using data to flag officers who are accumulating complaints, lawsuits, excessive force allegations and so forth. And we were the outsider looking at that and we use some subject matter as experts and is the city provided one picture of what they could do or we're doing and then after we issued a public report on that and reported that to the judge and court. And then the city hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to do an independent analysis and they found many more problems than we did and issued a public report on that so that relates to the second check on that sort of thing which is public reporting and the bill here is I think a robust a system of public reporting. I think that you're going to find no shortage of criminal justice experts out there, not just in Vermont but all over the country that will be very interested in the public reporting on the data here. And that was true also in these other jurisdictions, we had no difficulty finding criminal justice professors and and another experts who have enormous interest on the idea of government, you know, conducting its own or conducting its its data and making that publicly available. And many, you know, many weaknesses in the systems and sometimes those outsiders quarrel amongst themselves on their own nickel about the best way to ask questions and to analyze them. So the broader theme, I guess that ties those two points together as transparency. That's a critical feature. My second question is about making sure it's enforced in all three branches. And I don't know what authority, we have to do that, in particular, being on the judicial nominating committee, and trying to read about best practices, especially looking at diversity on our in our courts like it would, it's, it's highly recommended that we collect that kind of data. And so I guess I'm just wondering if you can speak to where, where our limits are and how can we get by and from all three branches. Yeah, so I don't have experience at the state level before but I do it at the city and county level which includes collecting data from prosecutors offices and courts and the way the bill is designed here seems to me to be the common sense way to do it, which is to view this as a collaborative product project rather than some other cities that I wasn't involved in would, you know, would give an office subpoena authority. I think that's always, you know, that that isn't some in some, you know, corners of different governments that's viewed as heading someone a loaded gun, and even if it's in the holster. And so I think, you know, not, not going to subpoena power, I think makes a lot of sense. And I have not been in contact with the judiciary and, and I think you'll, you'll hear from the judiciary on that. But I think there's an I mean my experience with other other judicial systems at the again municipal level is that there's enormous interests in them wanting to see how they're operating that you know the judges and judicial officers have enormous interest but very little insight as to how they're acting collectively. And I think, you know, consistent with their odes and also with a lot of professional training that judges have been receiving in the country in the last 1520 years I think. I think, you know, taking it as a collaborative effort and bringing everyone along. And I think one of the interactions when you're interacting with the agencies and that includes the courts is that they'll have their own set of questions that they want to ask of themselves for their own purposes of self examination and growth. And how they want to act, or because they, I think, will have an interest in identifying blind spots in not only in how their judges are performing on the bench. But what happens when the parties are dismissed and they leave the courtroom. So I think that the collaborative approach that's in this bill is pretty consistent with what I've seen and I, I haven't really seen resistance from the judicial branch. Yeah, so I'll leave it there. Thank you. Yeah, thank you Julio. So this question that you probably heard me ask if you watched it last week's testimony would certainly like your input on this as well. And that is, and it goes to one of the questions that you asked it that's going to be important that's what data is to collect. And we, we have the other bill h 317 where we lay out in detail the data. So it'd be a statutory mandate. This bill does it by rule instead. The other option that I wanted input on as well is whether we just allow the division to do this essentially through policy, not have to go through a rulemaking process. And what data they should collect. And if you have any views or that you could share about those three approaches and what we should think about doing, or which way we should go be appreciated. Sure, this isn't something I've discussed with my office so I can just offer you my own my own view on it. I think that the first year of this project is going to be so occupied with just literally the data systems out there that there won't be a lot of time to be asking really detailed questions and then running the numbers. The way it usually works is that there are two tracks through the people who are, you know, cracking the hood on computer systems and the like to find out what data is in there and then there's a parallel track. There are people who are who are trying to figure out what sort of questions to ask. And so they're, and there, so there is time that's built into the project for kind of the question designers to have the have the opportunity to think and develop their list of questions it would sort of be like if you bought, you know, bad analogy but if you know if you wanted to open a restaurant and you know you bought one and someone's in the back kind of taking a look and seeing what burners work and what's in the pantry. While people are out front designing their menu and trying to figure out what the community is going to eat and what they need what's missing. You can do those in parallel. I think putting them out putting really detailed standards in statute is probably the least attractive just because of the lack of flexibility. And so if they were going to be areas that were carved out I think that's good. I don't know that there would be any areas that the legislature would think of that that the Bureau would not. But I think if you if the if the committee and the Chamber wants to be heard on to make sure these are the minimums I think that's fine I just wouldn't get too much in the details I can tell you from other data projects that you can find out you can have a great idea and then and everyone. You know is sort of chilling the champagne and then a week or two later it turns out to be horrendously expensive or it puts back your project by two years. And then so you kind of have to pivot and be flexible. I think, you know, leaving the Bureau the flexibility to understand that and say yeah we have great questions, or we're going to need a $4 million software project to to address that. And it's going to take four years to build the data. Whereas there's a mandate to do that by time certain that that could be challenging to do so rulemaking. I haven't encountered that done by rulemaking before I've only seen general parameters that basically set out the result that you would want to have data that would, you know, on particular subject areas but not the types. The types of data that you would require to you know whether it's survey data versus incident data. And so I would say leaving most of the details for the Bureau, which has a reporting obligation which I think is really again that's really important for people to know what they're doing. And I think that you can do it contemporaneously as you as you can manage it because you want them doing the work not just writing reports but so rulemaking I'm a little skeptical about, at least in the first year, because we just don't know. We don't know what's under the hood yet. And it's hard to see how, how rulemaking would actually address, you know, address those needs. So it's a little early but I think in terms of legislature setting out kind of the minimum expectations I think that's actually quite a good idea and in terms of attracting candidates who who will participate, either as the professionals here around the council or as providing expertise from the outside. You know that I think that that could be quite helpful and it would also, it also may firm up the basis for grant applications and things like that, if there's going to be either through the state or in conjunction, in conjunction with the college or university, some grant work, if the, you know, whoever's providing the money if they see in statute that there is an obligation to address certain topics which match which match the grant. You know that may make things a little bit easier because it provides the grant or the grant issuer. A second layer of accountability they know you have to comply with the statutory mandate so I think that can be useful in practice. Thank you. Thank you. Not seeing any more, any more questions. Thank you very much. Good to see you. Okay, thank you. We'll now move to Tonya Marshall, state archivist. Good afternoon. Welcome. We can't hear you. I thought I clicked it didn't work now. Okay, great. Thank you much for having me I'm Tonya Marshall. I'm this for the record I'm Tonya Marshall in the state archivist for the state of Vermont but I'm also the chief records officer and the director of the Vermont State Archives and records organization, which is part of the Secretary of State's office, and I don't get in this committee very often so I'll just give you a brief background about myself but my education and training is an information science, which is really just the discipline of how to collect, store, retrieve and use information regardless of the format. And it contains computer science, system science, information use and so forth. It's the whole process of how people collect and manage information and then the requirements around those. I have a master's degree from University of Maryland, and I also have completed all the coursework for a doctorate in the same field. I've been with the state for almost 20 years. So, so I've lived and breathed that I work with all three branches. So if you're not familiar with the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration I think that's one of the reasons why public records came up last week and also I did put in I did submit some written information if you wanted to look at different things related to that but the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration was created in 2008 to pretty much end a bifurcated system. The agencies didn't know how to manage their information, didn't matter what format it was in. It was very convoluted practices, and the general assembly asked for a number of different reports, and wanted to get to the thick of the qualitative reasons why things were just the way that they were. And so I was originally hired as part of a process of a new law that went through for the State Archives Division of the Secretary of State's Office, but then I was also hired at the same time but the Department of Administrators Office. So I worked for them both for about two years. And part of that process was developing a report that led to the creation of the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration. So, we oversee the statewide records and information management program, and all three branches kind of work with our agency to understand other legal record keeping requirements. We literally inventory, we collect inventory analyze every single statute that the general assembly puts out related to records and information, which agency has to collect it, which agency has to produce it, which who do they have to share it with what are the requirements around that, if it's a specific format, and part of our role is to provide that information to each public agency as part of their overall management plan. By law we set the retention and disposition for public records and information as well. And so we've been around for about 12 years as part of this very systematic approach to records and information management. So I did in reading, you know, each 546 and I think that's why Rebecca Turner is that there's a couple components within there that are very separate from the current structure and organization of government and how we operate in terms of records and information management. And so I'm not sure if that was really the intent of this committee, because a lot of those sections starting on page five of the bill are things that our agencies and departments already do within the structure of the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration and why we were developed to provide that support. We have governance committees within the agencies and departments, some of them are less mature than others. So we do work on rubric, we're charged to use industry standards and practices. So those would be based on information governance at a very high level and then we work with each entity we get down into the weeds of their specific industry standards and requirements. And we build these models within the agencies that they can better understand the information that they are responsible for. They can comply with it. There's eight rubrics that we begin with from a governance standpoint. The first is accountability and I do have it in the written documentation if you wanted to just see what it is. Transparency in this context, it means documentation, understanding the legal requirements around your records and information, understanding those systems, the structures, the management plans. I think that Julio's testimony was wonderful because it is exactly what we see when we get into the weeds of helping an agency or department move forward. It includes integrity. Everyone wants the right information at the right time. We are in protection so that gets into these exemptions and I'll talk about the Public Records Act in a minute. Compliance, like I said we compile every single legal requirement. Part of my office is a legislative clerk so we do work for the legislature in that part. We also are overseeing the Administrative Procedure Act so rulemaking comes through the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration as well. So making sure that people who do need access to the information have that available access and then retention and disposition. And so within each agency, including the agency of administration where you propose having this particular division, those responsibilities are already established that they need to comply with in that rubric. And then there's also a statute Title III, VSA 218 that itemizes that agencies and departments, specifically administrative departments, so those would be within the governor's cabinet have very concrete requirements. So I just want to point that part out because in many ways when I was reading through and having people contact names that it curves out a section but now it allocates that responsibility to a different agency, seemingly agency of digital services. And it also didn't seem to recognize that within agencies is really mature and really acting, and I think gets to all these things are not just necessarily data sets there, they're all over and maybe the agencies are not connecting with each other or even internally. That's what our team does, and we've been working really hard for tiny. But we've been working really hard to actually have professional information managers in every agency and department. And then there's also the state models in the agency of human services, which obviously is one of the largest collectors of data that's relevant to this particular initiative in this bill. They all operate within this rubric so you won't find something in their laws that get down into some of the more weedy parts of it but you will see it in the federal regulations that they have to comply with and all those things carry forward. So there's different ways that the General Assembly kind of finesses and how they want, you know, you're standing up in new division new bureau and how this intersects. And there's just parts of this bill that I'm not sure if they were just unawareness of scope that's already happening. But this kind of sometimes takes a step back because we have maybe these agencies already working towards this and all of a sudden something comes in this very detailed and they kind of stop or someone carves out something. So, so that's part of what we do in terms of the Public Records Act. I'm sorry, go on. So this is really helpful. I'm really, really appreciate your testimony. Maybe you're getting to it but would you be able to actually look like point us to the sections I know you mentioned page five, but yes. Sure. So the specific section that I was looking at that kind of draw some comparison on page five was it's the new proposed section title three section 5013 for data governance. And so just to walk through that part. The first thing, just in terms of the not the public records because I know you've heard testimony on that. I live and breathe public records act every day in the history of that we do have, you know, the background for it's been around since 1976 but it's actually been in earlier forms. The definition of public record means written or recorded any anything that's written or recorded in the course of agency business to see the producer acquired. That means publicly available, and that was some information I heard during the walkthrough that you received that public record meant publicly available and that's that's actually not not true. It means government record and part of that is to say it's not your personal records. So when it first came into law, there were public officials who were saying that records that were produced or acquired in the course of agency business for their own personal records. So so that's just something to be aware of for the public records act. So I think that you would not want to carve out a unique division or bureau that's not subject to the same act that everyone else is because really when it sets forth that the definition of public record is the responsibility on now leave the agency as a whole but each elected official appointed official classified staff person everybody who's involved with that specific set of information, or larger program to be on a very clear path to manage it responsible. So part of that is through the exemptions process for example, the public records act will say, yes you receive this but we want to, we want a good balance of transparency of government actions but also privacy of individuals. And that's set forth by the policy of the public records act. And then it's set forth and what is exempt from public inspection and copying and agencies are responsible and we're still, you know, we still see a lot of pockets of awareness. You know, someone will say it was confidential but they can't really cite the real statute and so as we kind of walk through this our goal is to make sure that everyone understands, specifically what the General Assembly or federal government have put into place in terms of protections around certain sets of information and certain types of records. And a lot of them format independent doesn't matter if it's a data set doesn't matter if it's database it doesn't matter if it's a document it's still a textual document maybe an electronic form. Those are all provisions that come with that definition of public record. And then there's also, if you look into part of that. I know there's been a lot of questions about how do we talk about when you receive information by law from another agency to do your work. In 2021, last January we published the data privacy report is done in concert with the chief data officer. It was based on information that we compile and provide that got it down into individual actual specific data. So it was at an address. Was it a phone number. Was it someone's birth date. Was it. And so we, we were able to run that through our system and provide that particular detail of which agencies are required to collect certain types of information to do demographics. So that is part of what we do so I when I look at that, you know, not, not a public record. It's actually old language that we used to have in statute. Before the public records act and it's because the way that we didn't have the definition before and the way that you know to put something in the public record. I mean, the 1800s was to go to your town clerk's office and have something transcribed in the logging books. So, so it's really old fashioned but it's really not, I don't think applicable unless the committee is really desiring to exempt this commission, or this division from that. The other parts. Yes. Yeah, yeah, I just, I just want to clarify on that one before you move on to the next. Thank you very much. This is very helpful. So that particular provision, it seems to me is as much as a question for the chair of whether whether we should have our legislative council work to straighten this one out because because I have, and she was on earlier but I don't see that she's on now but but perhaps have Amron consultant or work with Tanya because we want to just get this right. No, I think that's our expertise. Right. No, that'd be great. I mean, maybe we don't need it. But yeah, definitely. Or if this just gets cut completely but yeah, I think the point is that what they're after is to make sure that to give some solace to the various agencies providing information to this division that the same protections travel with the with those records to that division and that's what I think we are after I think that is what Julio said and I think that is what we're after. But if we could work on that language but I did have one other specific question. Our courts subject to the Public Records Act or they have their own rules don't they So underneath the definition of a public agency underneath the Public Records Act includes branches. And so it, you know, I've worked with the court administrative office on different occasions where it has been articulated in terms of, you know, a public record as a government record. They do comply with the public record fees. Within that I do sit on the rules for public access to court records. I've been on that committee for over 10 years. And so what I would say based on the legislative intent because we are the holder of the documents that lead into that is that branch was added in the second round and was intended to be inclusive of actually all three branches. There was there's different opinion on that over the years in terms of legislative branch and the judicial branch from my perspective. I think that everyone has the capability to manage their information in an appropriate way, and they, you know, within the constructs of the law that's provided so. So we work we actually do have an active records and information management collaboration with the judiciary we've had it since, since 2004, and work with the trial court operated Terry Scott who has since retired and pack able so. In terms of what we do and what we do underneath the statewide records and information management program they receive all the same services and all the same things from us and so, and they're inclusive when we do do all the analysis so I think it's just over the definition of public record and public agency that sometimes there's some missing difference of opinion on what was intended underneath that law. So this passes same time as the open meeting law and if you look at the open meeting law exams to judiciary and I think there's sometimes some overlap because of the way the open meeting law and some of the earlier public records laws were passed in the 50s. They had different constructs to them, but it does include branch and public agency and that's the scope of the public birds law. Thank you. I'm just, I think I'm really curious why we are. And maybe it's just something that's missing from my notes, but why we are trying to accept some of this information from being publicly accessible. Some of the sections of this bill coming in in a raw format with identifiers and such. Absolutely would want to, to keep that from being publicly accessible but I think some of the work of this council with the data, we would want accessible and that seems clear with the establishment of reviews for users. I think the legislature would want to use some of the data to revise our work and to make it better so I guess I'm just curious at this point why we're exempting this data from public records in the first place. So that's to the committee or to you probably not to the witness I'm yeah that's a good question and I'm not entirely sure we should we should. So I'm just going to go with the chip on my shoulder about not letting public have access to data that we deem important to collect, especially this major so it's so underneath the provisions and I don't know if this would help is the sense is that if there's an exemption and the data is collected say from the agency from an agency of human services or one of its departments and there's exemption on the intent of this live I understand you know what you're trying to achieve there the exchange of that information is not going to suddenly make that that information not subject to the exemptions and and that's the case so it's also opening so something is not exempt it would actually carry through of having that there's also capabilities within identifying which I think is a key part of what you probably want to achieve and that can be more established rulemaking of having you know the bureau really established how they would identify information there is reference to a public use file we don't typically see that in statute written out it's usually in rules and regulations in terms of public use but I think what you're trying to do is have a balance of that transparency and you just don't want to have the you know if something is exempt underneath an existing law and it's collected from another agency to provide you know the work of this just to inform this particular bureau and what they need to analyze. You would not want that to be released or you can you know we can parse out specifically where all these legal requirements are for the committee, or be it be part of the work that we normally do with any agency and then they work through if they think this is the general assembly to say this particular set of information is not currently exempt but we we feel it is and that's how the general assembly goes through an exemption review process, or it should not be exempt from that. But if you're only collecting from other sources and they already have you know their legal requirements around that and that's going to be the work of this particular division and bureau to really understand all those legal requirements, and that's what you know the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration just does as part of our process for any public agency. Thank you. So, yeah, if you could continue going through the sections that. Sure. And the other section that stood out was related to the retention. So retention has been established since 1937 as having to sit with a particular public agency. So it makes reference to changing this so it's online 13 on page five or says a division shall work with the Agency of Digital Services on the collection and retention of data. And I'm not sure right there you mean retention and disposition because that does reside with the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration and one of the reasons we do that work. And one of the things that we find with us is that we have the responsibility of also making sure that we have identified permanent on continuing value so records that have permanent ongoing continuing value to the state agencies and departments, including the legislative branch and the digital branch actually transfer the custody of that information to the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration and we become this clearing house for it moving forward. So this right now sets that the Agency of Digital Services would set the retention, which is a different agency and department that does not currently have that authority to do. And so that has been raised to us because it is something that's structurally different. And I don't know if that was the intention of this committee. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don't think that was the intention. And it would seem to me that what we can do is it's a quick fix is that the division shall work with the archives with the state archives or state archivist whatever that language is that's appropriate. And that will remain whether the Agency of Digital Services is an entity that should be part of that as well. In other words, is it the state archive and the Agency of Digital Services, or, or do we have to parse this provision out that there are certain components of this that really are within the jurisdiction of the archivist and others with the Agency of Digital Services do you have an opinion of that or is this something that you'd want this division. And what items listed in that subsection three are those all with your purview. Yeah, I would, I would say in terms of that is already has to be done by this division by the nature of being part of the Agency of Administration and we don't need. We don't see that carved out separately for any other entity and state government so it would not be something that would be necessary in terms of the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration. I'd also say but I can't really speak on the behalf of the Agency of Digital Services is that they are like us they're they're providing services to two agencies and departments it's already carved out we don't see unless somebody's asking you know either the state archivist or someone at Agency of Digital Services to do something that's beyond what they currently do. It doesn't normally have to be parsed out I think you know when we have teams working through the records and information man they're not siloed I don't make these decisions on my own neither did my team we actually have an interdisciplinary team that we require each agency to stand up and it has ADS representation. It has AGO or general console representation depending on the agency it has I see they're mentoring the records officers because by law there is each secretary and commissioner has a designated member of his or staff as a records officer to manage their program. And then it also has business liaison so it's it's designed specifically to be integrated and it's I think to get to the testimonies provided earlier is because there will be business processes that come up. There will be compliance questions that come up. There will be technology gaps or needs or opportunities that come up and and that is already kind of built into naturally into what the General Assembly has established as part of the records management program for the state. So if I can just follow up. So ad archivist there or not I'm not sure I completely understood from from your answer is or or is this just data retention is covered elsewhere we don't need to put it in here. I'm trying to understand. Yes. Data retention is covered underneath the work that we do in agencies and departments already have to come to the Vermont State Archives and records administration and work with me and my staff to to receive that information to to develop those processes. So I guess that's that's already done. It should be getting done. I didn't say we had the good maturity of how we do governance but this gives the opportunity and if I would say if anything it's more emphasizing that you know we do have these requirements and laws for agencies to to collaborate and to work with not only ADS but also with our administration. Those are already there already have to have their programs approved by the Vermont State Archives and records administration underneath Title 3 to 18 it's been around since the 70s. Do all agencies do it well not necessarily you know we've been on a huge change management for 10 years but are there good models so I think that's where if you emphasize it I think it would be to more do a cross reference if you felt it was necessary out of maybe concerns that maybe it wasn't going to be done underneath the current statutes then maybe with cross reference emphasis to title 3 BSA to 18 which is what this agency subject to which is that they have to have an active records management program that is approved by the Vermont State Archives and records administration. That would that would make sense to me. I you know I think I I I'm sorry madam chair and Mark. I mean Martin. Sorry I was processing. Tanya's testimony and pretty excited about it actually because I think that the correlation between her testimony and the work that we've spent the last year and a half doing it's coming together. In your testimony was really solid and helping us get there. Thank you. So just to nail this down. I guess I just don't see the downside of listing the archivist in that provision. I mean I mean you know it would have the division make it very very clear that the archivist is in the loop on this if they have questions about these issues because you bring expertise to the table. Am I wrong about that. You're not wrong if you want to add it. My suggestion is just that it's already expected for those agencies. So if you want to put emphasis on it. What was it needless to say. Yeah. Emphasis is critical. Because of the nature of this particular borough. Things need to be intentional. It's an important bill and I think that this is one of the few opportunities that the General Assembly has to to really bring together information that we collect throughout the state but that hasn't had quite focus and so the the effect of that though is as we get into these other systems that are playing is that you will start seeing improvements. So if everyone's really collaborating in a good sense and working towards that effort. It's going to have it's going to go beyond just this particular division and so I think there's lots of benefits to that from a state perspective. Thank you. Thank you. And Madam Chair I don't think I had anything else specifically it was really related to that one section that was the new proposed statute at three BSA 5013. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I do encourage you to to work with our legislative council and so we can get the get the language right. Thank you. Well thank you for having me. Thank you for the opportunity and I do want to say that if you ever need to research historical research and acts we do provide that support the legislators. And we also provided the legislative councils. So we're happy to provide any type of background or information or if you get into problem solving. That's what we're here to do. So I appreciate it. I'll stay on in case something comes up. But I appreciate the opportunity today. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry for that interruption Madam Chair. No, no, no, no worries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we don't have any other wins but we were going to visit with legislative council. How about if we take like a five minute stretch break by 10 minutes. Yeah, so let's take 10 minutes and we'll we'll be back and get to the family. Thank you. Okay, so let's move. Okay. Back to the house. I do see your hand up. That was from before. From before. Okay. So I want to welcome our legislative council. Good afternoon. And I don't know if you've been following the conversation regarding public records, but we thought it'd be helpful to to visit with you as after the bill to help us understand the intent of the language and some of the sections that were that were referenced. Thank you. Certainly for the record and we're an average LA legislative council. I wish I had been able to hear all of the testimony that you've heard so far because I feel like I missed some, some good information and discussion but I will just look back to the language. Now that you have been discussing, which I believe you are looking at on page five looking at the data collection section and talking about the Vermont's public records law. So I think perhaps how I initially worded this may have have alarmed have alarmed one or two of your witnesses. There are a lot of policy considerations around how you structure access to sensitive data, as you sort of move through this process of establishing the new division. And I, it's wonderful. I think you've heard from the state archivist, which should be very helpful as you move through figuring out how this, how this section should operate, looking at the different types of, I will say, having not had a background on the work that I was doing for this division I was a little bit hampered in drafting at the time on some of the finer details of where this data is coming from and where this data is going to be. Physically if you can say physically housed, right so I'm envisioning you are going to have you're going to be receiving by you I mean the division is going to be receiving different data sets from different state agencies, possibly other entities that are that are not government agencies that perhaps are not subject to who are not currently subject to any of the the Vermont's public public records law. I think when you're looking at how this process unfolds and what considerations are important for figure out how these, how the public records law is going to intersect with the management of this data. You have several points you're looking at you're looking at the point where the data is either already existing with other entities, whether there's going to be new data that's going to be collected by other entities which will eventually wind up over with this division. Probably any data that is already currently being collected agencies is covered by Vermont's public records law. However, that may be some of the information may be exempt from copying inspection. Some may be information that's already publicly available. And so those entities that are already government entities in theory are either covered by Vermont's public records law, or perhaps by the the federal version for you. And the question is, is there going to be additional records that are provided it or data into this system that is from an entity from a private entity, such as a hospital or some sort of, you know, something within the, the criminal justice system that is a state government entity. And so how do you want to treat that data as it's moving from an entity that's either not covered by the public records law into a state government system, whether you think that information, or whether there's going to be issues around that information entering and this might be another topic that you could hear from either from other witnesses who haven't information such as that or from the state archivist how that situation might be handled. I do see a hand I don't know if I should pause in my. Yeah, I have a question and you don't have to answer right now, if it's sort of coming later and it's really for you and I think for for coach and and Martin, just. I'll really, I didn't jump in because I didn't have a question but just want to say how grateful I was for Tonya Marshall's testimony is actually as a former archivist myself like super, super important perspective and I really support the direction of trying to really make the arcade state archives very central in this bill. And there was a question that was, you know, like, I'm trying to understand how much of the intent of some of the working around public records law was about protecting the privacy of individuals who might be, you know, deposit parts of a big data set and just trying to kind of understand the intent around that and if there are, if there's anything in public records law that we are going to run up against if part of our goal is to protect the privacy of individuals. Yes, those are all good questions and some of the considerations that see how should I start. So there are a couple of issues that you're going to be look at when you are collecting data and how that. That goes to the public records law so if you have information coming from other entities that is that the information is exempt under the public records law. Because it falls into one of the current exemptions those exemptions will follow, follow the data so to speak to the new division. So the, and there are a couple considerations there. So having multiple data sets from multiple places coming to one location. Is there, is there a chance that those multiple data points are all connecting are connecting from multiple places to one individual, such that where they started you would not be able to identify the person. If you had in a second or third data set from different locations, would you then be able to identify the person such that they would, that the information would now fall under one of the, the public records law exemptions. And is that something that the, the division is going to know how to recognize. Perhaps the answer is yes to that and they can be trained on that the, the next question is, where is the information being housed. Is it going to be a database that is and I think this, I did catch part of Ms Marshall's testimony about the retention issue and I think that in part was not an intention to say that retention should be governed by someone other than the, the records management policies that are, that are adopted in conjunction with the, the state archivist office, but to say that I lost my train of thought. But if you have information, let's see, let me back up for a moment. So if you have information coming in from multiple sources, and looking at how to determine whether new records exemptions applies. If you say, yes, there are records exemptions that apply to some of this data, but not other data. Is this a database that is run within the division, or is the just the complexity and the magnitude of data, such that the database itself is going to be run by a vendor outside of a state system, in which case, how easily can the division access that information in response to a public records request. When it is sort of housed within this vendor who the state may have, for example, a contract where there's a certain cost each time you need to extract information from that data set. This is an additional consideration and one that I really have not much background on this. I'm not sure what the thinking is about where this will be housed, whether this is something that's going to be able to be within the division and they have their own database or whether it's something a bit more complicated that will need to be worked through a vendor on in which case, I would encourage you to, you know, hear maybe more from the state archivist or other public records about how the fees and the costs would work out in that situation. And then an additional consideration when you're looking at data points from multiple sources is, you know, under the public records law there is a window of time when a entity who receives a public records request like the division would be able to consult with other government departments that have an interest in whether documents are released or whether they're withheld under the public records law, and is that time sufficient given where those with which entities that information is coming from. I see another hand. Thank you. See if I can pull my question back up here. So, I'm hearing a lot about I guess, kind of how the system works as far as protecting some data. And I guess I'm just looking maybe for some examples. I don't know why somebody's personal data would need to be protected, maybe an example why a name would need to be protected. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be. But I guess examples that way and as far as this information goes, is the different levels of I guess lack of a better word is there different levels of security on different information. And if so, is at some point with all the information be accessible, depending on say a court case or an investigation or something like that. I know that was a lot, but I don't even know how the, if those questions were for you, Cameron. Let me start with in the order that I remember them in. So, one question about specific examples. I think I do know that the, the RDAP report, the most recent RDAP report did mention that some of this data would be probably confidential under law. I don't, I don't want to presume to provide an example because I am not that familiar to be honest with this type of data, and how that would, how that would play out here so that would be an area that I would recommend you hear more about from entities maybe that currently house some of this information. And in terms of others accessing the information. I mean, the public records law is is a way for members of the public to access information that is not otherwise deemed confidential or should be withheld under law. There will always be other mechanisms to reach data, whether that be litigation, some sort of auditing type system but usually within those there are mechanisms for still preventing the publication that is sensitive and should not be publicly released from being introduced out into the public, but the each is a is a different mechanism from how the public records law relates to the data. I feel like there's a third question that I missed. No, no, the two of them were kind of together and I got my answers there but they brought up another one for me and just, just left. Oh, about some of the, the way I took what you said is that the information just wouldn't be available. But what about in a, if it was sensitive to a court case or maybe a criminal case or something like that, potentially there's information that still wouldn't be available. Could you give me an example. I mean, so it looks like coach might be able to put it into the cop down to Eric. Eric might be able to understand me a little better he's used to me. I think we speak the same language represented sometimes that's true. But I think a couple of examples that just lead to mine and you're referring to court records for example juvenile proceedings are confidential. The underlying data that are underlying the proceedings might you have an eye okay. Yeah. Or for example a criminal conviction that has been expunged or sealed that those are confidential and yet the underlying data is exactly the sort of thing that you want that you want. I almost called them the Bureau, the division to be collecting. I think those might serve to illustrate situations in which you have confidentiality provisions by law applying, and yet you also want to still be able to collect this data and as Amron was saying, I don't know how the public records piece of this would work but you can inadvertently be in a situation where multiple data collection avenues provide an ability to figure out who somebody was when when it's supposed to be confidential under law. Does that make sense great. Yes, thank you. Yeah, I can see a little balancing act in the whole process. Great. Great. Thank you. Yep. So then let's see, in terms of hands. Alicia right here. Yeah, Alicia and coach. And I'm sorry, Mark. Okay. So this is where I know I'm missing the order. Sorry. I was just going to share the information that Eric did with a couple other examples that we have that we've dealt with actually in the last session. Oh, so I guess here's my question is. Why wouldn't in those examples that Eric and Amron, I mean been talking about why wouldn't the public records act address those I mean if information has now been gathered by this bureau and it now can be used to identify somebody. Wouldn't the public records act address that situation. Because now all of a sudden the exception exemption would apply. So I guess I'm struggling to understand in what situation. The public records act wouldn't apply. I do understand when you collect information from outside but that's what a lot of government information is is collected from third parties. And once it's gotten into the government, the public record act applies right. I guess I'm just not seeing. This is a big issue except to say that the public records act applies. I think there are. I think you could, I think you could find that that I think the challenge really is understanding whether there is enough information that is of a public nature that there's an obligation under the public records law to produce that information that there's an obligation under the public records law to produce that information. And if so, will the division have the expertise to to do that, given the multiple sources that the data is coming from, and hopefully the future is yes they would be able to figure that out and then the next question is, is that something that is is doable within a within the time constraints of the public records law, given potentially potentially the magnitude of the data. So maybe, are there any considerations that should be made about the, the costs of of accessing data that is perhaps not stored on state servers necessarily, and this is not to say that there isn't information that the, that the, the anything that is produced by the division isn't also still subject to the public records law and if need be can be redacted down so that people can see the information that is publicly accessible, but without that personally identifying information to cover those instances of of confidentiality. So I think the, the answer to your question is, is, yes, the public records law can in theory designed to cover all of these situations and I think the question is, are there instances where there's can be an equal amount of transparency through having the data available within the agencies that originally collected such that having it, then apply again at the division, is that necessary. And that certainly is a question for, for you I, I raise these more as, as considerations not because I believe that it, it should apply or shouldn't apply but if the art app report is is saying that certain records are bound to be confidential under a law, then I think there are considerations of how this committee wants to balance that public transparency with the need to protect the privacy, or protect the information that is required to be or, excuse me, the information that would be withheld under the public records law. And I feel like these are conversations that I feel like we did not get a chance really to discuss in depth, and you know my not having been involved with this committee prior to this, I perhaps was a little off the mark and how I was describing this in the draft. So I would, I mostly put all of these questions out to you so that you can consider them fully decide where where the line should be. So that in the past and again maybe the, the state archivist can have some input on on the history of this, there, there have been information that just under the statute is, is determined to be confidential, which automatically would make it exempt from copying an inspection under the public records law. Or is there enough. Should I pause. Oh, go ahead. I do see that I do see there's another hand so I don't know if I should keep going but it's gone. If I could just just real quickly just so everybody understands this bill coming to us was not pre baked. You know, if we expected this discussion. So as best we could in the very short time frame that we actually had. So, so, you know this, this is exactly what we should be doing is figuring out that kind of policy question. But it seems to me that the public records acts, the straightforward. Of course it's not straightforward but as much as possible I don't want to try to re jigger the public records act in this bill. You know I want to rely on what we already have. I don't want to go into that matter. So it's obviously going to take some more thought though. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, and then I think, coach and Barbara see your hands down, but so police and then. Yeah, so, I'm on page six online nine. And actually, I guess that I would be thinking of the online 13 that subsection C to But it has here that the division shall develop methods of to permit sharing and communication of the data between state agencies. And also agencies and external researchers, including the use of data sharing agreements. It seems to me that within that language, you're saying that there's a way to desensitize this data in such a way that if external researchers can have access. to the public and the public and data that would be confidential under public records, I guess, from a lay opinion would also be confidential to an external researcher. So, if we already have that in there would be just be able to add on to that section there to really simplify. What the conversation are having in is to add in that there has to be a way to come up with a data sharing provision for the public like means that we're storing data into formats, de identified or desensitize and sensitize data. That can happen, but it's not onerous to access the data in in the event of a public records request. But I think we're already kind of spelling out how we would share this data, and that it is a priority to share this data. So, and I just, I think there needs to be spelled out the bill. And I don't really have a strong opinion on where it's warehouse that the data needs to be stored in a way that it can be accessed by the public. And should it be within the realm that the public could have access to it. So, I mean that was like, if it would fall under a public records request. If some part of that data could be accessed by the public, then that data needs to be stored and accessible format. So if that's two data sets that's two data sets. But I just, it is really problematic to me to silo this data in any format from the public. So I think that really reduces accountability it reduces the intensity of the work that the division would do, because there would be no real public access to the data from which they were drawn their work. And I think I want their work to be as transparent as possible. So I think they're doing important. Seeing that section C to the external researchers is included in here outside of state and local agencies. It seems to me that that would be an ideal point to add in some language regarding how we are intending to let the public maintain their access to data that they should have access to. And I just kind of wanted to get your thoughts on like, is that something that is addressable objective or is that something that is kind of funny piece now throughout the bill. So a couple thoughts on those on on your thoughts. So the section that you're looking at because I. So just to put this in context. This is about the requirement that the division adopt and develop a data governance policy. And methods to permit sharing and communication of data, you know between the division and state agencies local agencies and possible external researchers. So I think what might be helpful for the committee would be to hear from other entities that from other state entities that have databases that use data sharing agreements. The difference between a public records request and a data sharing agreement and I am not an expert on data sharing agreements. The point is that there are in theory mechanisms within the dating data sharing agreement to ensure that the, not to ensure, but to incentivize the person who's part of the agreement from not sharing that information such as, you know breach of contract other legal documents to pursue if the person agrees to not share any confidential information, and then does it could be that some of this information that is confidential by law, could not be shared even with a data sharing agreement, and I don't know what the laws around this, these particular sets of data. So I am not sure whether that is this circumstance. But there may be some sets of the data that would be appropriate for a dating data sharing agreement that has other legal mechanisms for ensuring that confidential information is not shared outside of that one researcher. So that's one thing to think about that I would say you could get more information on from other other state entities that do data sharing agreements. Other I think the avenue you're talking about really are are the public use files, right that data that can be taken directly from the database, scrubbed in a sense of the identifying information such that it can be released. The information that would normally be exempt from the public from inspection and copying under the public records law could be removed and then those public use files are available for anyone who wants to go in and use that data. So I think those are sort of the two, the two areas where you can foresee, you know, a possibility outside of the public records law for people to use the data in a way that you are still ensuring or endeavoring to protect that information that's otherwise confidential by law. Yeah. Coach. Thank you. What we already have in existence. What am I nice referring to. Not only by virtue of the sharing agreements that, for example, crime research group with the judiciary. And with the Department of Public Safety for the fair and impartial policing data that is shared for all 60 plus law enforcement agencies. Similar standard set within the agency of education around child data specific to disability, race, and other protected classes, because our school sizes are so small, identifying specific numbers in some cases will tell you exactly who the person is. So there are very specific tools that have been designed in that agency as well as in the agency of human services. And with DCF and children under the care, you know, in custody of the state, you know fall into very specific categories, but they're the exact same individuals across the spectrum that are affected by the request that we're trying to make observations we're trying to make from a research perspective. So, we've been doing this for a while, obviously, and as it's been said by a number of my fellow committee members. This is important information to be able to share and understand so that we get a better idea of where the disparities actually are, and then what we can do from a policy perspective to hopefully mitigate, you know, some of that. So, it's an exciting time, you know, it was just like listening to Tonya, you know, and I don't know where my library interest came from. But, you know, it was it was exciting to hear, you know, the work that's done by the archivist. So, I think we've got several witnesses coming up. We're going to hear from DCF we're going to hear from the Department of Public Safety. You know, and I think we can ask the specific question to them, as they come forward as to how they deal with this aggregating data and that component. I think I chose some great points that we can kind of see how other state agencies handle this. I do just want to point out that DPS and DCF do have ways to scrum information in order to comply the public record, and I will expect nothing less of the division. I just, it's going to be such a sticking point for me. So I'm so curious to see how they're doing it so we can incorporate it into this bill. But I don't think we can have a silent division with data that nobody else has access to that. Yeah, yeah. Well, great. Well, that's helpful. Thank you, Felicia. And then we could just do it from the other witnesses, if you're thinking of a path forward in a hospital, you know, then it's going. Yeah. Sounds like another subcommittee member here. Okay, well, with that, and let's adjourn. Thank you everybody.