 Let's get going, because we have kind of a packed agenda and I feel like my fear is we may not get through the entire thing this evening, which would be a shame, but certainly not unexpected. Good evening. Welcome to the March 2023 meeting of the racial disparities advisory panel. Sorry about last week, folks, which is when we normally meet, of course, the second Tuesday of the month, but as you'll recall, there was a bad storm and some of us had no power, some of us had no internet, some of us had no power or internet. And here we are. Let's begin with introductions. I'll go around my screen and call people's names out. And please introduce yourself, Jeff. You're first. You're muted. I like that factor on greater occasions, but I have the switch. Jeff Jones ex VSP retired. And I guess in the first crew. Yeah. Thank you. Aaron, Aaron you're muted. Oh, yes, I pushed the wrong button and turned off my video instead of turning on my mic. Hi, everybody Aaron Jacobson and I'm an assistant attorney general and I work in our offices community justice unit. Great. Thank you. And I now I'm sort of blending announcements with introductions. Derek is our new representative from corrections. And I would love to be brave enough. I'm actually going to try your last name me out to Nick. That's a very valiant attempt. Oh, well, thank you. Go ahead, Derek, introduce yourself. Thank you for leaning in. So, Hi folks, I'm Derek. Mio dove Nick, Mio dove Nick. Yeah, which is a little misleading based on how it may appear. It's an Eastern European. Last name so the W is pronounced like a V. And I use he him pronouns as a ton has referenced I organizationally am succeeding my former DOC colleague Monica Weber as the representative from the Department of Corrections. I have a different role within the department that Monica did so in my title within corrections community and restorative justice executive. What that really means is that the portfolio of grant funded partnerships that the Department of Corrections has with both our community justice providers sometimes referred to as CJC is our community justice centers, as well as another set of partnerships with transitional housing providers. Some of which are also some of this in community justice centers. All of that work is coordinated through a unit that I'm responsible for. So my work within DOC is primarily centered around this set of inherently partnership based grants. And I'm just really happy to be honored with the opportunity to hopefully advance the mission of our DAP through linkages back to the department. So thank you. Thank you. Hi, Don Stevens, Chief of the Nalhegan Abinacki tribe executive director of Abinacki Health and Abinacki. Thank you. Karen. Hi everybody I'm Karen Bastien and I am the chair of our soon to be named changed but in the meantime we are known as the Children and Family Council for Prevention programs we will soon be known as the Council for equitable and justice. Yeah, which I'm really excited about and I'm here to fill in for my friend and colleague Elizabeth Morris who gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Last month. Model talk. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Grant. Hi, I'm Grant Taylor and I'm here taking minutes for the meeting. Thank you. Sheila. Hi everybody I'm Sheila Linton she her her pronouns. Original OG panel member and co founder and executive director of the root social justice center. Right. Tim. Hi there, Tim leaders do want the department of state's attorneys and sheriffs and happy to be here good to see everybody. Jennifer. Jennifer Pullman I'm the executive director of the Vermont Center for crime victim services. Thanks, Rebecca. Hi everyone, Rebecca Turner from the defender general office panel member and I'm actually wanting to send you check that my sound is coming out okay. Yeah, not great. It's not perfect but you know what is. All right well let me know if it really deteriorates I'm trying to figure something right. Thank you. Julio is from is an assistant attorney general who is what Aaron director of civil rights unit. And that's right. He would announce himself but he had to leave to go out to know he's back. Julio. I'm sorry a ton what are you exactly again. Yeah right never mind. I'm just an attorney general and director of civil rights unit I'm just here I'm not on the RDF I'm just here as a interested member of the public and a member of our office. Great. Jennifer Furpo. Oh, I'm Jen Furpo I use she her pronouns, and I am a training coordinator at the Vermont police academy. Susanna. Hi hi Susanna Davis racial equity director for the state she series pronouns. Thank you. Judge Morrissey. Good evening. My name is Mary Morrissey I am a Vermont Superior Court judge I currently preside in Franklin County, and I am the judiciary's representative on the committee. Thank you. And which he. Hi everyone my name is Richard to pronounce he him his health equity and data systems consultant appointed to this panel from the community by the office of racial equity. Thank you. And that is everyone. As far as announcements go just Brown can only be here for the second hour so she will come in in a bit. Chief Stevens has to leave at 630. Karen has to leave at seven. Which all means I think we need to move a few things around in the agenda give me a moment to think about that. But while I'm doing that, let us discuss the minutes from October which I sent out to all of you. Oh God, a while ago now I can't remember the date. But we were to vote on those. So, I hope that you all have comments or anything. No, I moved to approve the minutes. I'm not looking at them of what date. I'm sorry October I didn't put in the actual date I'm sorry Sheila. I'll second it. Any discussion. I have a quick question before we do the vote. Do you want a voice vote or we just going to do a vote on this. What, what does that mean. The voice vote is what people asked for at our last meeting where we recorded the name of each person voting in such a way. So I kind of need to know what you all would like to do. Well if it's something that we decided last time and then why don't we just go through with it. Well we didn't totally decide it we sort of decided it about those particular issues, but can, could I suggest that if it's something ministerial like this, we just do a voice vote, or the other one the razor hand. And if it's something substantive like policy related then we could certainly do a roll call vote. Got it. That would be my suggestion. And which he's agreeing with that other people comments. I agree with that. All right, then let's just go through with that. All in favor of just approving the minutes as they have been presented, somehow indicate by either raising your hand or screaming that you are in your just agreeing to it. Well then. All right, all opposed. All abstentions. Derek, okay. The minutes are approved as submitted. Thank you. And thank you as always to to grant Karen has asked could we punt the DCF piece to next month. Yes, Karen, we absolutely could. Okay, so we're taking that off. Got it. And we were to start we were going to start with my giving sort of a rundown of what this committee what this panel. Oh, also grant you get the extension from Jen. Well, right. Okay. And a rundown of what the panel is supposed to do what its purpose is. I'm going to try to do this as quickly as I can, although the person who's supposed to follow me isn't here yet. And we had sort of a discussion about how to do this that I would go first and then she would follow up with her discussion of representation on the panel. I'll just charge ahead. This came this panel, the our DAP better known as racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel came to be in 2017 as part of act 54. We, it was organized within the office of the Attorney General, and we are supposed to consult as we have with the Human Rights Commission, the Vermont chapter of the ACLU, the police association, the Vermont association, and the Vermont association of chiefs of police. Others are also just sort of noted there and we others is broad. Let's just say that others is broad. Similarly, it was comprised of 13 members, five members from diverse backgrounds, representing interests of communities of color throughout the state. And then the executive director of the Criminal Justice Training Council at that point. Now known as the Criminal Justice Council, or designate and that is Jen Furpo. General or the designate and that is Aaron, the defender general designate which Rebecca Turner, executive director of state's attorneys and sheriffs or designate and that is now Tim leaders do not have chief superior judge or designate judge Morrissey commissioner of corrections and now you have, or the designate proxy which would be Derek. Commissioner of public safety or designate that would be captain Kessler. She is unfortunately not able to be with us this evening, and the commissioner for children families. The designate. Tonight, we have a proxy for the designate and that would be Karen, but nor it's usually Tyler and as you all will remember, sometimes Tyler has as Elizabeth Morris come in. The point of the panel. It's too. Well, obviously, go through the criminal and juvenile justice systems, noting places where there have been significant racial disparities, what we eventually came to call high impact I mean, the discussion moments became really, really significant in all of this. We are supposed to provide recommendations to the Criminal Justice Council and the bar association and the quote here is based on latest social science research and best practices and law enforcement and criminal and juvenile justice. There has been a significant reduction in model trainings and policies for law enforcement judges correctional officers and attorneys, including prosecutors and public offenders to recognize and address implicit bias. That has been difficult. Go ahead, Aaron. Thanks. Just when we were listing all of the various members. After the DCF commissioner or designate is the executive director of racial equity or designate. And we have the director herself and Susana. And I was going to get there as yes, absolutely. Oh boy. Okay, we have a Christine Hughes apparently cannot find the link and would like to be there Aaron can I ask, let me forward this to you. Yep, I probably have her email but if you could forward that'd be great and I'll send her the link. Okay. I think you probably have it now. Um, we are to, in any event, provide all sorts of recommendations to the Criminal Justice Council on data collection, model training and a policy on the escalation and the use of force in the criminal and juvenile justice system. There were, there's a report that the panel is supposed to do every two years, and which we have done. We've done a little bit more than that, I would say. Um, and the report is due by annually so in other words every two years. And there were three major questions for this, and these will factor in in a moment. The first was how to institute a public complaint process to address perceived implicit bias across all systems of state government. The second was whether and how to prohibit racial profiling, including implementing any associate penalties and lastly, whether to expand law enforcement race data collection practices to include data on non traffic stops by law enforcement. That is the big, the big picture, in fact. The, what is interesting about this is in 2021, this was revised, and the big revision was that the executive director of racial equity would become a full member of the panel. Um, that was a very big part of that of what the revision in 2021, and would in fact be able to appoint to further community members to the body, which she did and those are positions that are held by thing, and by which he. And of course, Susana Davis is currently the executive director. The other important thing that happened in 2021 has to do with this panel, not sunsetting, it was originally supposed to. The efforts of Coach Christie and Martin LaLonde went toward one of the things that they were working on was repealing the sunset. There was great support for this in the legislature I can't remember the votes, but in fact, that did happen. So that is the revision of 2021. And that's basically the broadest outline as short as I can keep it about the R DAP and what it does and what it is intended to do. I want to point out that we have had a couple of lacks and three that I want to mention directly one was none of us were happy with in the first report. What was said about the juvenile justice system. There were a bunch of us who felt that that not enough attention was being paid to that as a body. There was not much attention as needed to be paid to that. That was one. The second point had to do with the weather, the weather or not to prohibit racial profiling and if we were prohibiting it to discuss implementation of criminal penalties, we punted on that and in fact in the report in 2019 said that we were punting on that and that we just weren't going to deal with that one yet. And we did not. In turn, the other part of this the last part that has been difficult has been as you know the criminal justice training council has morphed into the criminal justice council that has been I think it's safe to say a somewhat rocky transition. There's a lot of learning that has been going on on that body I know that. So, we have not really been in a position to give them the information that act 54 of 2017 asks for. We certainly Evan meaning who's been now replaced by Tim. And I have spoken with Heather about this Heather Simons is for those of you who don't know the executive director of the police academy and I guess also the criminal justice council know what is it Jen. So the executive director of the police academy itself and Bill Sorrell is the chair of the criminal justice council. Thank you ma'am. And we've been talking with them and they're there, they're still a little up in the air about what they like from the our dad. Things can be put in statute that don't actually happen to fly at that moment. Anyway, that is all I wanted to do was put that forth as an eye as to put in your heads. What it was we were supposed to do and then in a bit I will talk about the 2019 report and why that's important to us now. Jess is still not here is she because she was going to ask a really important question about representation. I, we're going to hold that. And when she comes on will let her hold forth on that so just bookmark what I've said, and it'll come back. Let us then move on to a chat about an update on the second look subcommittee. And Rebecca, can you take it from here. Sure. I hope this microphone is better. I think it's switched over. So update on second look committee we met. When was it two or three weeks ago, let me go. Yeah. And had a good just discussion check in I think we had not met since before the new year, and just to sort of summarize all things related to second look. In January with that we heard from representatives from sentencing project, who were sharing with us. Okay proposal of model legislation relating to second look, and they shared that to the entire panel. We have not this consent second look committee had not, and still have not have not met to address and gone into the details of that proposal. So, we heard as a panel in January about this model legislation is there was some questions that came up. We met as a committee two or three weeks ago to sort of get on the same page as to a scheduling these regularly so that was now on the books and anyone who is not currently on on on second look just shoot me an email but it's now you're going to get recurring email on meeting notices for zoom second Thursdays so our depth is second Tuesdays. The second look is now meeting. I think at least through the year. Second Thursdays. And our goal with regularizing meeting is to not let, let these meeting plans slip off, you know, through the way side so we're going to meet. And I think the goal is to use the time to now process where we want to go from here. So that we've been introduced to, but also to start identifying what our priorities are, what we hope to achieve sort of what it what is our objective. Again sort of intersecting with what a time just touched down upon in terms of what is our mandate. What is our mission as a panel. We were hoping from this month's meeting to sort of get a reminder to then orient us in our future committee meetings, because, because everyone will have different perspectives who are participating on this committee certainly members from the committee, it will be helpful for us to have sort of what are our anchors and guiding this. And so I think that's where we're going we're sort of at the beginning and I anticipate that once we figure out sort of a reset of what is our anchor terms of what's driving us on this for priorities. Then we can divide up the labor and go from there and I think the goal is by the time this report deadline is due is at the end of the year. Hey, Tom. We will be due at the beginning of December of this year. I mean certainly before that but that will figure out a time a timeline committee to get some draft proposals and along the way probably more check ins to bring to the to this panel on the monthly meetings to to get confirmation on the same page and and go from there. But I think our goal is to get something that I think is akin to model legislation to the report it by the end of the year so that the legislature could use it for the next session. So everything if there are other members who are there on that last meeting if they want to weigh in to add something I missed. Well hey this this is Tim and and I think just I was showed up late at the meeting and and caught up as best they could at the second meeting but something I stated to that group, which I just wanted to stay here for the sake of the minutes and the record is in order for me and this goes to Jessica's comment when she comes on later but in order for me to reverse with the 14 constitutionally elected states attorneys on this topic, I will need something to send them. And so before talking about things and pre, you know, pre assuming, you know, model legislation etc. I'm not in that space yet so not to not to immediately start talking about it but I think we need to discuss the discussion, if that makes sense and then folks like myself that need to send stuff out I can't represent anything other than having a technical current state of the law, which I sort of noted at the last at the January meeting, but just wanted to kind of note that and I think it'll loop back to what Jessica brings up later on what it on and I have both discussed but does that make sense to Rebecca and it on me. Yeah, now absolutely Tim and it was as Tim was talking about what what we quickly realized was we needed a check reminder as members of this committee. What a what our goals are but how we're going to work with each other and how we're going to work with each other to get to a product or or to some idea project idea to then bring to the panel and and so we got into a little bit of a process discussion, which then brought us back to well, let's not have process dictate the result, unless that's what we decide as a panel, or is it substance like what are we here for, and then we will make sure and figure out in terms of Tim what I hear is yes you'll need time to bring it back to the 14 states attorneys etc. Yes, like, that's all part of it. We don't anticipate I don't think this committee with its monthly meetings is is being set up to sort of wait until the end. I think the hope is to work committed as a committee to meet that much one so that is something for this panel to know this isn't I'm incredibly grateful for the people who signed up for this committee for the duration, but in and out like I think those who are here to work on the data and any group. I mean, you saw how that was pretty intense at times but also we kind of broke up into subgroups and it all sort of was free flowing and flexible. So we're getting ready to dig in and anticipate some hard work ahead. Good. Questions up Aaron. Thanks, the only, the only other thing I might add is that we have discussed in the second look subcommittee and honestly I can't remember if it was this last meeting or a prior meeting. But the fact that at least at one point, the sentencing commission also had a second look subcommittee and I don't know if that's continuing work or not. But the discussion was around how we felt like for the Rdap second look work that it was really important that we kept that. That we not combine it with anything that the sentencing commission is doing like let's not just combine the two bodies because we happen to be talking about the same potential policy change. Because going back to our statue and our, you know, our directive which is, you know, squarely to be thinking about how to address systemic racial disparities, and that's not the focus of the sentencing commission in the same way. Furthermore, the Rdap has community member involvement and participation and membership and the sentencing commission doesn't. And so that was just something that we, we talked about as a group in terms of process was, was just that we really did want to keep in our conversation at the Rdap around second look that our mission here is really to address systemic racial disparities and that we absolutely want to be able to include the community voices. And that the sentencing commission is just different has a different kind of focus often so. Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments people'd like to put in here. Okay. Um, and now, just briefly allow me to say, Happy New Year to Reverend Hughes and to Christine Hughes. Haven't seen you all in a while, but Happy New Year, even though it's rather late. Thank you. You're welcome. One quarter of it's gone, but you know, hi. Yes, hello. Actually, we cut ahead of you but it's your turn. Okay, great. Hi everyone, I'm Jessica Brown she her pronouns, and I am a community member appointee to Rdap. And I have been so gosh, it might be coming on five years now. And when I was appointed, TJ Donovan was still the attorney general, so he appointed me. And I was still working in the Chinden County Public Defender Office so. But I wasn't the representative of the Defender Demo's office that's always been Rebecca. I was a community member appointee. And I know we're, you know, are by the end of this year we're going to be issuing our next report. And have you talked about the report at all yet. No, no, I talked about the mandate of the panel. So I'll just say that. I think I think it might be helpful for people to know that when we issued maybe our very first report at least the first report that after I had joined the panel. There was a consensus about everything that went into that report. And so there were parts there were different parts to the report. If there wasn't consensus about a particular recommendation. There were, you know, addendum that indicated the opposing position. And I anticipate that, you know, and, and we talked a lot about process and, you know, and, and did reach consensus about how we would put the report together. And I anticipate that that's what we'll do as we decide what to include in our report this year. With that sort of background and context. So I'm, I have been participating in the second look subcommittee. And when we were having our most recent meeting. We talked about the fact that it might be helpful if the folks who are officially members of our DAP with, you know, whether you work for a state agency or our community member appointee by the attorney general to talk about we like to whom we are accountable for lack of a better way of putting it I guess. So for example, now I work at Vermont line graduate school. I did not work here when I got appointed. I still consider I still am a community member appointee with that said, you know, to. So now I need to think about how I, for example, would want to be represented on the. Report. So if I'm going to be represented as Jessica Brown, you know, associate director of the Center for justice reform at Vermont line graduate school, then I would have conversations with the people with, you know, my direct superiors about like, I mean they know I'm on this panel, but like, hey, you know, here's a draft of our report that I'm supporting as, you know, part of this panel, which is different than when before I worked here I you know with Rebecca, sort of reporting to the defender general, I did not I felt like I could be on there and you know, as just representing myself essentially. But I feel like I'm in a different position now and so I feel accountable to different colleagues and would want to make sure that they knew not that they necessarily would have the authority to say that, you know, I couldn't endorse the report but I would want them to know what I was endorsing. So with that said, I was hoping like so what we talked about doing tonight was having members of the panel sort of talk about that like, is there someone that you have to sort of report to on what you're endorsing as part of the panel. Do you sort of run by kind of the topics that we're discussing and the recommendations that we're making to get sort of approval from anyone in your agency that sort of thing or if you're a community member sort of how do you manage that. So, I could everyone. Aton you want to go first and then you can sort of call on other members of the panel because I don't want to screw up any miss and miss anyone. Okay. I am a community member for the purposes of this panel and what I do is sort of an informal polling of people who are contacts in various communities, including several, you know, communities of color and the LGBT, etc. communities in the state. And the last time I went to representatives from these groups. At that point to the head of the Rotland and double ACP and also to outright Vermont. I went to the pride center and got feedback from them I also went as the act 54 from 2017 as I spoke with the Sheriff's Association, I spoke with the and ACLU. I sort of did all that work that was put in statute in terms of who we should as a panel talk to. That's what I did. So, I guess, we should ask Aaron but of course Aaron wasn't here when we did the first report. Do you talk with the Attorney General. Yes, absolutely so I wasn't here for that first report but we are going to be drafting a report this year and we will begin that work before we know it. Time will fly. So, you know, I, there's a lot of opportunities for me to check in with General Clark and others in my office as well. And we have weekly chief's meetings that I go to. And that's always a good time to check in. I can call charity, I can texture I can email her there's it's the lines of communications are clear and open. And at the same time, because I am our offices designee. I know that I don't, it's not like every single word that comes out of my mouth I have to vet with the Attorney General. My work is directly connected to justice reform and policy work and that's one reason I am the designee and so. I know that I have, there's some trust built in with my office about the work I'm doing at the art app and what I'm communicating about and if I ever have any questions. I just check with the folks in my office that I need to, whether that's because I might be wanting to represent a policy point of view, or because I don't have the expertise. I don't have the expertise with others and so I would just say that then when it comes to something very specific like writing a report. That is a time that is an opportunity to really make sure that the Attorney General sees what you know what we're doing into the report, how things are worded, whether she has questions. And that's a time that certainly there's a lot of communication with the front office before anything is published that's representing the opinion of the Attorney General's office. There's also times when I might say, I'm speaking on behalf of myself, not the Attorney General, and that's, that's okay too I think we all do that in who are similar positions like mine where you're not representing yourself but an office. Just to be careful to make that clear. And sometimes I have to say, I don't know I need to go check with my office. So it's definitely something that we're always navigating. And I really appreciate this, this conversation. Okay. Judge Morrissey, could you go next please. Sure. Wait, can you hear me okay. Yes. All right, so my picture is not showing up but the similar to what Aaron just said I would want to talk to the Chief Superior Court judge about the final product. I don't, I also don't feel the need to vet everything that I say here and I don't think that's expected, but to the extent that certain things may certain recommendations, for example when you're talking about second look legislation that could involve could involve a substantial reform of existing law statute. That is something I would want to talk to the Chief Superior Court judge about in terms of the final product. So they're, but that's the only person I think that I would check in with. There are a number of different judges involved a lot of different opinions, but that's who I would, that's what I would be doing. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Susanna, executive director Davis. I mean, yeah, I, I do sometimes. I think it's important to have a, I guess a policy, but I think in large respect that's going to depend on the organization itself. There are times that I think the admin expects me to speak on this behalf and there are sometimes that I try to make it really clear to whoever I'm speaking to that I'm not speaking on behalf of the admin and I'm speaking on behalf of myself. And so I think that as long as we recognize that there is that duality and that there's going to be sometimes and we're expected to be. I mean, we're all wearing multiple hats simultaneously and it's really difficult to reconcile all of that. There are certain racial equity things that are probably good racial equity practice. And theoretically my official position is that yeah, they're cool, but I don't agree with them personally and I think that being honest with the group and with the public about those instances is going to be important so I don't know. I think I generally agree with what's been said so far. This is something that is determined at the art at level or at the well now I guess it is. As you can see I still have a lot of mixed feelings about this so I'm not even sure what question I'm expected to answer right now. Okay. Thank you. Sheila. Thank you everyone. I also have a lot of mixed feelings. Interestingly enough, when I was putting in my name I was debating whether to put, you know the group social justice center, which I often vacillate back and forth with, because I want people to know that there's a constituency connection with people who we call part of this root community in our BIPOC community that I am in community with, and that I have a piece of representing. And like many other people on this call I wear multiple hats and as a co founder and the executive director of the route there is very much so a tie to the work that I do there personally and I am part of the room I am part of that community, as I'm a community member outside of that work role as well and so I really appreciate being able to hold duality and and the many hats that we do wear. And that is going to be true for myself in this space where I feel like if there are things that I feel like that the route and when I say the route that means BIPOC people who have been engaged in the activism or community organizing that we are doing and disagree with something that's in the report having our name on it, I might not do that and I think that for me who I would be speaking to is those people and I would also be speaking to my current board around what we would be doing organizationally. And so I think that, like other people as well. I was appointed into this position by the Attorney General. However, I believe it was supported by my community by the decades of work that I've done across the state, advocating for specifically for people of color and working within a side or through criminal or juvenile justice system so I do feel some confidence and being able to represent but at the same time, we're not a monolithic group and I don't represent everybody. And I want to be respectful and cautious about that. Thank you. Tim. Yeah, and I started to talk about it earlier a little bit but I would copy and paste the response that Aaron gave Honorable Judge Morrissey and Director Davis I think they did a much better job than I will do, and describing. I think the sometimes tricky position I find myself in, but you know first and foremost, you know I did, I worked in state and federal government for the past 12 years. And it's recently happened to have worked as a state prosecutor, and now I work as an attorney for 14 separately elected attorneys, as well as on this panel, the appointee of the executive director of the Department of States Attorneys to make it more complicated there's the executive committee of the state's attorneys, but depending on the topic, I can operate in a very fluid manner and also depending on the topic I would need to check and vet in the same manner that Judge Morrissey noted with respect to second look for example, the, what is what I've discussed so that I can accurately and most aptly assist the, the, the art app with what what they're discussing but the my most fun space to dwell in I think for this group is to help with technical assistance and provide the education both in practice from what's happening in the field of criminal prosecution, and assist the, the group with sometimes translating work that's happening in the courts, and in our criminal statutes. So that's where I'm kind of the most fluid I can help the most in terms of staking out positions. Sometimes where I have to, you know, track back and, and try to sometimes find consensus but also accurately represent you know if there's one state's attorney or three or four that feel a certain way when I accurately represent that maybe a group of states attorneys feel this way and a few feel this way, because what I never want is to walk out one of these meetings or with the legislature and get a call from one of our states attorneys saying Tim did you say the states attorneys fell this way and then I say, Well, no, I said that here's the law, here's how some states attorneys feel here's how others so that's a long way of saying it depends. Rebecca. Same question. Um, I'm, I am the defender generals designee for the office of the defender general, not full area is designee. Um, while the office of the defender general certainly a government organization. We are unlike any other government organization who's represented on this panel, because of who whose interests we are representing and, and, and that is by way to say that we are not an organization that's run by a board of directors, we represent individuals, children and adults in the criminal juvenile delinquency systems, and we are client centric. And so, when Matt chose me to be the designee on this panel. He chose me because of my experience working at the ODGF and working there since 2007 specifically in the appellate division and now in my current title as a supervisor of the appellate division which gives me sort of a statewide look from view of these decisions and, and, and getting some perspective. That's not just at the state level. Again, how our individual clients are at the receiving end of systemic racial disparities and the criminal juvenile justice system and so, when Matt chose me to represent the defender general office. I am representing these individual clients. And so, I just want to stress that in terms of the process of how I engage with the defender general himself, in terms of where we land on the voting of the report or or any of these sort of projects that develop. I absolutely regularly with him about what is going on on our dappies is well aware, certainly any time that I am providing a substantive vote. For instance, weighing in on the report or, or making recommendations on the data entity and things like that. Bringing him in and making sure that, that I have the support of the defender general. But because of, of what he knows the experience I bring to the table. He is very supportive of, of, of what I am suggesting in terms of recommendations consistent with the rate of art up, because it is consistent with the interest of our clients, but know that I am absolutely in regular and frequent communication with the defender general on on the matters of art up and I have his support if I didn't I wouldn't continue to be representing the defender generals on this panel. Great. Thank you. Jen Furpo. Excuse me. So I am the design of the executive director. I was put in this position by the previous executive director so any decisions like our, you know, are we supporting the report are we co signing this I would need to go back to the chain of command and and have a discussion with them, but I am absolutely empowered to freely share any information about process at the Academy information about the structure. That sort of you know that that kind of thing. Okay. Great. Thank you. Which he. Alright, can everyone hear me. Yes. Yeah, I think maybe I'm a little bit in a different position than other folks on. I've been doing a contracting work for public health around New England. God, 18 years now. Um, so for me being in the space of sort of starting a kind of officiating a company that does health equity consulting and basically being sort of like the chief person there I kind of have that freedom of whether to speak from my own personal perspective or speak from, you know, the, the consultancy perspective or both. Um, I do, I do kind of hold different hats that kind of make it a little bit. Make me feel a little cautious. The VP at the NAACP of Wyndham County. So I just hope to be careful whenever I bring in work from there that I'm very explicit I'm not representing NAACP I'm just sort of sharing the experience of that. But I think largely what I feel like I tend to bring in is just, you know, to Sheila's point, I am not the, I'm not the voice of all BIPOC people. Or even all Latinos or even all Puerto Ricans, but definitely can share about my own lived experience and it's work that I've done both at the organizational level and at the community level, and sort of can bring that in. Yeah, I think I feel, in conclusion, I feel like a lot less hesitant to voice my opinion and it'd be my voice because I'm out here as a community representative that does contracting work and I never represent any of my clients really in any of these spaces I always bring a mo assist here as a consultant. Okay. Thank you. Jeff. Yeah, it's an interesting question. I see this bifurcated in the sense that there's going to be a sliding scale amongst most. And the value of people on this panel to me is their, the totality of their experience and how they return to their sponsors will be a sliding scale from opaque to invisible to totally open. And I encourage that. But it's the people that keep me coming back. And I think that's the value how they refer back to where they came from. I'll leave that one to them and hopefully that will not always be totally linear. Okay. Thank you. And last but not least, Derek. Full candor. I haven't had an explicit conversation with my leadership about sort of the terms of engagement. I imagine them to very much align with what I heard from Aaron and others. You know, I'm a designee of this case an executive branch commissioner. I would like to believe that I've been entrusted because of the work that I do and I work in close partnership with the community. So my role within corrections in the way that I try to practice it and interpret it is somewhat to begin with. I'm clear, you know what my upline supervisory chain is at the end of the day, but I'm also committed to a civil society model in which government can only truly be responsive to the needs of communities if they're transactional and, you know, robust and participatory democratic processes that inform, agitate, transform how the executive branch does its work. So I'd like to infer from my being asked to succeed Monica Weber that that sort of baked into how I can show up. I don't like to rest on assumptions either so I'm appreciative of you calling the question, because it's a conversation I'd like to be able to be, you know, fully accountable in all directions to but everything that I've experienced from my leadership and within the department leads me to believe that while I'm a designee and have to adopt a posture that is representative of this institution that that I work for that. The institution itself is striving to be more permeable, more intersectional, more emotionally intelligent about how it goes about doing its work. That makes sense. Thank you. Jess, is there any kind of summation that you want to make based on what you've heard. Um, I just want to thank everybody for your transparency. I, you know, I was just noticed a couple of comments in the chat about process and I am firmly in the position, take the position that this the membership of this body like who's officially on this panel has continuously changed as you know evidence just by Derek's comments right. So, over the five years that this body has existed, I absolutely to me it's a very worthwhile to continue to hold ourselves accountable be transparent and have these conversations. So I really appreciate everybody's willingness to participate. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, which I'm, I'm sort of going everywhere on the agenda here because I'm. Oh, don't ask. Are you, are you prepared to take over and talk about the community safety reviews. Yes, yes, I am. Go for it. Awesome. Okay. So, just to sort of we're all on, so just so we're all on the same page here so one of the subcommittees that we formed as a community safety reviews on this kind of especially because I tried to push this a lot. So, one of the things that has come up within, you know, the last few years or so results, a lot of talk about what, what do our systems of public safety, including, you know, police, what effect that has and really just sort of kind of the pressure coming from the community up. You know, and that's had has included a review of school resource officers and brought up our union high school. I brought up our town official paid for a community safety review led by the community. The Burlington did sort of a community focused review of the police department. And here's Massachusetts also did a similar probably safety service review. So, these things kind of kind of these reviews have been kind of around and the thing that I think stuck out to me a little bit was that there are parts of these reviews. That make recommendations that can really only be made at the state level, or could be made at the state level. And I think it's worthwhile as a legislative advisory group to really be able to take a look at and see, you know, is this something that is worth for us considering and recommending to the legislature. And so, and while we tried to start this group, late last year, I think it was pretty clear to me at the last our deaf meeting and clear to other folks that it. There wasn't necessarily like a work plan established, like, we didn't necessarily know how many reviews, which reviews, what was like our regional scope here. And so we all felt a little bit lost on how to continue. So I took a little bit of time and establish a little bit of a work plan. Aton, I don't know if you were able to share that out. You know, I didn't. I honestly didn't. I wasn't sure you wanted me to do that. I'm sorry. I didn't know that was in that was me because I think you asked and then I was like, well, let me check with and please correct me if I say their name wrong. Sing, sing, sing. Yeah, sing. Thank you. And Judge Morrissey, which were two outspoken folks from the our job to, to sort of feel like, Hey, what are we actually doing. So they, they gave two cents on it. And I sort of feel I have like a little bit of a plan so I'll share my screen here. Oh, I got to have you got to enable share screening screen sharing. Aaron, is that you. Okay, because yeah, I'm working on it. If I have to share something it'll be a disaster. If it may be more expeditious to make him a co host. Oh, there's a thought. Okay. Yeah, give me the power. Oh, now we can you pull up witchy on the participants list. And then if you do, do you see, well, it's a more. Yeah, over. Yeah. Did that work with she. No, why is it not. It's not letting. I can share. Oh, sorry, I can share my screen. I don't know what happened, but whatever you did work. Awesome. All right. Can everybody see my screen here. We can. Awesome. So these are, so these are the, can you read it? Do I need to make it bigger? No. Great. All right. So, these are the four reviews that I mentioned, they vary in size from 24 from 24 pages all the way to 224. Um, and they all have different types of authors. Like, you know, the school resource office is kind of led by youth at the high school versus, you know, Burlington police department was like. Kind of led by the city manager, I believe I may actually be really wrong on that. So I apologize. But just noting that these are, you know, different reports about different aspects of our community and tracks and public safety systems. And I, so I kind of created a little bit of a timeline for us here to be able to get to a point where we can just have what we find incorporated into a final into our final report if that is our choice. Um, so we were going to have our March 8th meeting instead of having it today and that's okay. But I would love, you know, in this in this first part just to be able to have our depth folks like people who are officially assigned as our depth members to sort of help me. Um, try to see how can we delegate these four on how do we review them to then be able to share some type of conclusions from them, you know, are there state policy ideas we should be looking at. And from there kind of drafting a report to submit to our gap. As a, as an added as an add to that final report. So that is like a very brief overview I think of shrinking down what's developed over the last like four to six months. Sure. And you've submitted this. I mean, seeing as read this right. Yes. And she's on board with it to correct right they both of you are on board correct judge Morrissey. Yes, but yes, I mean, I, yes, generally speaking, yes, I support the timeframe. I'm still a little unclear exactly what we're doing, but in terms of the actual plan. Yes, that's fine. Okay. Which year there. So you've got meeting those days are also meetings or the ones that are not related to our gap are just like, you know, we should probably finish it this month. I think how often and when we need would be up to the folks that are wanting to be part of this work. Okay. I think that is like wanting to like our doubt to decide is this something we want to take on this year do we want to procrastinate do we want to just let it go. But I, I personally have a very strong inkling to really pressure at you know at least three of us. Sorry, three of the art members excluding me to be part of it. And it sounds like saying is already on board so really like if we get two more, two or three more folks. Yes. So do you want to add, we're going to ask for some more participation right now. Right. So, I guess, I guess before we ask for more participation and to judge Morris these point, are there questions on what this is on what we're trying to achieve with this. I have that question. So if you could, and I'm on the committee. So, if we could just understand what the objective is. We cheat. Yeah, please run Sheila to see if I understand it correctly. So my understanding is that there's these four reports and that this committee is to divvy up the four reports so it's manageable to read. Come back with questions concerns and ideas that have come out of this specifically around policies that we think that we would not want to reinvent the wheel, but make a proposal or and or suggestion to this group based on other models that are either suggested that are either working or that have either been presented in these reports. So that's the way I'm understanding that and that which he is asking for people to volunteer to be part of this committee so we can really just basically bang this out and read these reports and be able to give some feedback to the group as a whole to determine whether these reports even have any things substantial in that that we can come to consensus with. Yes, thank you so much Sheila that was great with the added detail of, you know, one of the things that God mentioned earlier on this is that, and how this advisory panel is different is that we have that we like to try to think that we're going to be able to do that. And I'm like, here we have, you know, at least half of these have been community driven reports about public systems especially regarding the justice system. Why aren't we looking at them kind of feeling. Judge Morrissey I saw that you came off of camera for a second. I did hold that one sec. Are we going to be doing any follow up about me and they're there's some policies will put in place by these organizations and we're going to do follow up to find out what they've done as a result of the policies if they've worked are they monitoring are they doing it by they enforcing. Is this just to try to understand. The landscape of policies as they exist, are we actually going to do any follow up to find out have these policies been effective in the way that they were implemented, or monitored by the organizations. Yeah, I think that's an excellent question I think from my standpoint. Is that I think we need to take a look at sort of what are the policies that that got recommended in there in the first place and they may not look as they not be they may not be recommended as state policy but just things that can be done that we could sort of take up as possible state policies and I definitely think that you know if. If we don't exactly feel comfortable of carrying it all the way through to a final report on that we could definitely follow up with the organizations and agencies that have been taking a look at this and seeing what its impacts have been. Which I think it's an excellent idea, but I don't think that's quite set in stone. Sheila you have your hand up. Yeah, I think I agree with that and I think it's like a yes and it's like I think that we want to be looking at these as some examples, as long as we understand the caveat that there might be numerous reasons why maybe things weren't or things didn't go a certain way. It might not be a state model that can be applicable it might be where there was resistance and that community with some people in power so I want to be mindful that if we go down the road which I think is a really good question and I think that maybe we should go down that road to figure out have these been successful or not, but I don't think that that should be the determining factor of whether we decide or or the only determining factor. Of whether we decide as a group to move forward with these things because there's many differences within communities, and there's many politics within different communities so I think that when we're looking at it more of a statewide we should be weighing all of those different variables. And which you let me throw in that if you need some help identifying people in Amherst. I probably can help you with that. You're welcome. So which I will start it off where I will try to volunteer to be a part of this and to contribute to this committee. Yay. Okay. Does that sum it up for right now which he it sounds like can I just get like a nod of head stop there's no questions or things any clarifying or thumbs up something. affirmation. Awesome yeah and I'll put my email on the chat so you can you know something comes up later I'm happy to answer. So, I guess, sorry, so I guess that the final thing that it's in my brain right right now and a ton maybe it's it's a matter of you and I getting together and discussing that but then so now we have three official are that members. Taking a look at this you know with the with the caveat that it's three by pocket identifying folks doing this labor of like is that enough to be able to to go through with this. I personally would say yes. Excellent. Okay. That's all for me. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Judge Morrissey are you feeling less disquieted. Yes, I think I have a much better understanding of what the, the objective is of the committee. So that's, so that's very helpful so I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Again, we, given that we are leaving out the state of the DCF requests of the are that I'll finish up with a discussion of the 2019 report. You'll see why, actually, let me begin by saying, I mean, and this is in many ways for a lot of you who were not on the our DAP when that report was written and submitted and discussed and all the rest. One of the big issues was the notion of protecting the work product as time went forward that we didn't want the recommendations that we came up with in that year to sort of evaporate as that report was written. And, you know, we're done with that, you know, we've moved on racism's gone. We weren't hope we written didn't want to do that we wanted to continue to go back to it that was our model of going back to the report and talking about things that have happened and haven't happened and basing at least part of the three report on that discussion. So I have gone through the report, the 2019 report which I also sent to you and made some notes. I recall that when we were discussing at the beginning of the meeting, the purview of the of the our DAP that was in act 54 2017. I mentioned three things that we were actually, we were specifically guided to discuss. The first was how to institute a public complaint process to address perceived implicit bias across all systems of state government. We were going to wrap hours of discussion. For those of you who were not here, I mean like hours of discussion. We, and I'm just going to read to you a little bit of what we wrote in the report. The panel believes that the Human Rights Commission is the appropriate place to house a public complaint process to address implicit bias across all systems of state The HRC is already charged with investigating complaints of discrimination and housing public accommodations and state government employment, adapting the HRC to be the central clearinghouse for receiving investigating and resolving bias related or referring them for resolution to the appropriate governmental agency or branch is an approach that fits within the commission's mission. That's directly from the report. In reality, I should I've seen borer, I don't know, twice it seems in the last eight months and it occurred to me this morning that I should have invited her to speak to this my they did get some more staff. Enough staff. No, and the scuttle butt is that they just didn't get enough to satisfy what we wrote in the original report from 2019 2019 that that they that they have more people for investigations. They are not in the pro in the position to do sort of broader public complaints, in other words, and I hope you understand the difference between investigations and broader public complaints. That's why I wanted board to come. I didn't think that ahead. Think about that enough and ahead, I had to invite her, but that is pretty much what I have gotten is that it has there's been some movement but not enough. There's been some leaves in agreement with HRC leadership and we did have bore here for that that additional resources are needed to prioritize race related bias complaints from across state government and resolve them in a timely manner. So clear to the panel that outreach to various communities is needed. And I remember that voice being both Sheila and Rebecca, I'm sorry, Sheila and Jessica, in particular, about the outreach to the various communities that hasn't happened. They don't have enough people. It's not a question of they didn't want it. I mean, you do need to understand and those of you who were here remember that bore came and spoke with us. So this isn't us just blowing smoke. This really was being cobbled out in consultation with the executive director of the Human Rights Commission. We also recommended resources for caseload coordination and mediation. Again, what I am hearing is that that hasn't really happened. I'm not telling you all of this to depress you. I'm simply telling you all of this to keep us up to date on where our various recommendations went. In the next section, whether and how to prohibit racial profiling, including implementing any associated penalties. In general, we had a hard time. We didn't adequately discuss this, and we promised in the report that we will discuss this issue and the present proposals in the future now those proposal proposals are as follow. However, month statutes track existing federal requirements with respect to due process for those with limited English proficiency. Secondly, support the use of objective and simple screening tools by first responders, including 911 operators to assess the need for mental health or substance abuse treatment and the involvement of behavioral health experts. Support the development and implementation of training designed to educate the public on their individual rights under federal, state, local laws and community traditions. And lastly here, implement and expand training for officers promoted into supervisory and managerial positions to ensure that people occupying those key law enforcement roles will hold all officers, officers accountable on issues of race, racial disparities, cultural competency and data collection. This has been uneven. And I don't think that that's necessarily a depressing thing. The, Susanna, can you speak to about the first ensuring that Vermont statutes track existing federal requirements with respect to due process for those with limited English proficiency. Yes, I can provide an update on where we are with the language access proposal. Thank you. So, the. Oh gosh, I don't want to repeat anything we talked about in a previous meeting so you just let me know if you've heard this one before but we have submitted the language access plan report that was in January of this year. And it went to the governor, the secretary of administration. I'm sorry I was distracted by Derek's very very friend. Sorry about that I have a dog who plopped himself right above my laptop. I knew I knew this meeting was going to turn out good. So it went to the governor, the secretary of administration and the legislature. We testified on it in Senate gov ops and house gov ops. And I am aware that we have a number of legislators who have been very mindful of it and championing it which sounds good to me. The recommended funding amounts that we put in are not what in the recommended budget from the administration, the numbers in the recommended budget are lower. The expectation is that we will treat this as a phase one and phase two project where we will seek the rest of the funding in the next budget cycle. So we're going to push really hard for that. We did a webinar on Saturday, this past Saturday, where we did a sort of public, lightly more accessible version of the report a walkthrough because it's super long at the hundred pages and the plain language summary is 18 pages. So it is pretty substantial and I'll put links to this in the chat. How does this help you. Okay. So, we are hoping that Vermont based contractors have the capacity to handle the workload that it would take to translate all of the states existing vital documents. We're hoping that that can happen in a year but it's really going to be dependent on the capacity of the service providers we have here in the state. We may not handle that in a sort of close timeframe and we may look to national vendors to help that work along, but that's just for vital document translation. We still are going to want to make sure that we have solid interpreter policies and availability of interpreters for all three branches of government, which really is going to primarily focus on the judiciary and other settings that have very high stakes to them, like human services type setting, clinical settings, etc. A lot of that is outside the purview of state government though, we got a lot of complaints about hospitals not providing adequate language access. And that's not really something that we can do a whole lot about. The other thing is, we're looking to create a licensure credentialing program. I want to make sure that it's one thing to say you have the right language access. It's another thing to say, we're going to get high quality service and if you don't then there's a there's a mechanism for you to get some kind of reports for that so this feels a little bit like a ramble so I'll stop here but that's kind of where we are with that we're waiting on the budget process to conclude. I'm aware that the legislature is looking for ways to cut things out of the budget to accommodate other proposals. And I have been based on recent conversations concerned that they're going to try to shape what has already been reduced from our recommended funding amounts for this. So I've been trying to remind them this is a matter of compliance with federal civil rights law. It's not a wish list. It's not a nice to have. So if any of you find yourself in casual conversation about language access in Vermont with any legislators in the next couple of weeks, then please do mention that. So assuming that we remain in the budget. And then we will be getting started with that work but it's really going to take time we're going to need a really long runway. So in terms of the deliverable in terms of what you just read off in the report. It'll be slow work but we're going to be moving towards it I hope that helps a little that does enormously in fact I think that in a certain way that we couldn't have guessed in 2017 or in 2017 that this was going in that direction, you weren't here yet. And now it, you've done an enormous amount and as has your office so that one it seems is moving, although perhaps not in the way that we had originally imagined. But there, thank you. The recommendation and routing involving screening tools by used by first responders to assess the need for mental health or substance abuse treatment and the involvement of behavioral health experts is spotty at best, as far as I mean way spotty. I know what the SP is doing. I know what they've been trying to doing trying to do. The plan is to have two embedded mental health workers in each of the barracks. I can't remember by when, but that's the goal. Not necessarily whatever one wants right. If you are from the psychiatric survivor community and such. In fact, many from many different parts of the neuro divergent community. The idea of behavioral health experts that work with law enforcement is utterly terrifying. So, that could use some tinkering as well. The training designed to educate the public on their individual rights that I have not seen at all. If anybody else has. Please speak out, I have not found that. The training for officers promoted into supervisory and managerial positions. The training that has to do with cultural competency, race racial disparities. I can tell you personally, I'm doing it. I'm doing it they actually pay me to do this. And so for whatever that's worth yours truly isn't is is doing the best he can with this. And this was certainly underway when we wrote the report it was not as robust, I can say, with complete confidence, as it is now, and it is not as robust as it will be in another two years. So, there's that that section be. Right now one of the other things expand and support the use of community policing approaches to law enforcement. I don't even know where to go with that. I don't even know where to go with that. It's not happening. It's just it there are hit and miss discussions around the state. I don't like really condensing here a lot of research that I've done because otherwise, we'd be here for four hours listening to me, which isn't really fun at all. That is not happening as there are people who are trying in different communities to put together oversight committees. And so far as these oversight committees with teeth, right, not just advisory. This you've certainly seen this recently in Burlington this came up. It was on there. It was warned in there. Oh for God's sakes I'm having a senior moment what's it called town meeting day that's right. Um, and that was defeated. So that's kind of how it's happening. It's happening in different communities and that may well be how it has to happen. That's an interesting discussion to be had and one that we may want to have. Um, the last section, whether to expand law enforcement race data collection practices to include data on non traffic stops by law enforcement. The panel, this is from the report again spent a great deal of time on the issue of data collection. The panel believes that data collection is a vital issue and one that needs to be addressed early as we grapple with the challenges and the injustice represented by racial disparities. Oh my God, did we do that. I mean, they this like got the legislature, they like really as you well know, really lit up on this one got really happy. We wrote a report the following year, which we thought was giving them the blueprint for what to do about data. And then they came back and said this is nice we want something else. And we had a little bit of time of being really, really crabby about that. And we wrote yet another report about data. And that one actually resulted in the division of racial justice statistics. So, I feel pretty good about see, did it come together and exactly the way we imagined. No, but I think we certainly made what, and a 70% a 75% move in the direction that we were going with that. And it was partly because the legislature was really, really interested in this, particularly of course coach Chrissy and representative LaLonde. That represents what was explicitly called for in the report. We went on with additional recommendations. We went on about training and outreach that we needed more training in the area of racial biases racial equity cultural sensitivity, and such things that would this large white supremacist thinking as much as possible in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The training is this for law enforcement judges prosecutors and other actors in these systems this is what we've written, but we feel that it should be expanded training should also include members and staff of the legislature and citizens who might be exposed to law enforcement or the criminal justice system that broad outreach has not happened. So training for members and staff of the legislature. I know that bore has done it. I don't know how often she does it. That is another question to ask her, but it is not as much as I know a set thing that happens on a regular schedule. So I just put that in front of you. We wrote at one point about legislative inclusion panel members expressed concern with the way in which bills are formulated and shepherded through the legislative process. We are very aware of the old aphorism much used in minority communities in such circumstances that says, not about us without us. I think the same concerns the ways in which legislation that affects minority communities as usually created wrongly without the input of these communities. We were hoping that there would be some no way in which bills with a significant racial impact would be brought out before they go to. So we're hoping that there would be some no god committee and crossover and then to the other side of the legislature and so on. That is not happening either. Rebecca. Yes. Has the legislature. Any of the chairs of the committee's reached out to you as our chair for our adapt to weigh in on any relevant pending legislation bills. Not this. What was await Aaron, I'm wrong s 14. Yeah, that's 14. Which was. Aaron, help me. Something like an act relating to reporting on justice reinvestment to expenditures, something to that effect. Can I share that I know that at least one as for, I think directly impacts youth, black and brown youth. And I, and, and it's, I think, possibly implicit because it's about adding more listed offenses requiring 14 year olds and up to go right into the adult system so increasing that list of offenses like trafficking, drug trafficking, human trafficking, fences that we know are actually disproportionately impacted, and people are arrested or black and brown. So I just want to alert this panel that I am absolutely disturbed that what I am perceiving is just not reaching out to this panel for input. And what I'm seeing and again this is anecdotal that there seems to be a connection of our depth to bills relating to data, but not necessarily the other subjects that are within our mandate but also specifically within the 2019 report. Which I would then immediately say, there's a lot of repetition we're going to have to do here and strengthening. Euphemistically, but no, you're absolutely right. Likewise, this next issue pre trial monitoring and risk assessment, you'll remember we spent a lot of time on that. One member of the panel spoke to the fact that while pre trial services are available statewide they are not uniformly implemented. The question of encouraging and achieving uniform use of pre trial monitors has been raised with the hope that the legislature would turn some attention to this issue. Has anyone heard of that happening. I haven't eat it on. So the judiciary and judge Morris he can maybe speak to this more put together the Mental Health Commission, and of that there's four or five subgroups. And I think I know some of the folks on here are on some of those, but there's a I'm on the pre charge subgroup of the judiciary and the post charge and in the post charge. There's some discussion about pre trial services obviously and Willa and Aaron and I have talked about some of that work and then within that, there's some discussion about basically, you know, having pre pre pre pre trial services reports kind of help, right dispose of cases before they're sort of typical criminal justice track kind of picks up speed. And so I'm working on some of that right now and I can keep this group included, certainly on that. And I've been working with Marshall, Paul, Judge Hayes, Aaron and Willa from the AG's office. And again, the normal obstacles of sort of implementation in a, in a separated criminal justice system, you know, apply but I'm trying to keep that discussion going. And the other thing is there's been a, you know, discussion of a potential summer study committee about alternatives to bail, and what that looks like an s 27, and looks like a study committee route is headed headed that way and one of the things you are thinking about pre trial monitoring and thinking about like the way the federal system does things, you know, it's just totally different. And sometimes people that have interacted with both our federal and our state system are like why you know when I was charged with a federal crime, I had like this buddy effectively and I'm a probation officer pre trial, you know, who was very helpful and as opposed to the you know the state system is as Derek knows there just as a lack of staff and resources right now and anyway, probably mumbling there's been some work in that environment. Okay, that's just recent. I would ask then that Tim that you take a look at the report. Okay, and look at the language and perhaps come back at us with some assessments of how far things have gone. Of course, one of the things that's critical here is in no way did we say within such and such a time framework. We never did that. So, things that are happening slowly, slightly differently than the way we proposed it. That's something to take into account. I, I certainly don't want to incur ill will by saying Oh this is so slow. You haven't done this and you should have done this. I may think it. I don't think it's a great way to win friends and influence people. Having said that, lighting a fire under someone is not always a bad thing either. So there's a balance to be struck there. My question on that is part of what this new report will be this December kind of reflect and sorry you probably have already said this but basically reflecting on the 2019 2020 and 2021 reports that this group put out and saying kind of where, how far have we come, sort of a little bit or Well, more looking at this report from 2019 I don't see that there's a reason to go over 2020 and 2021 we the division will exist. Gotcha. No, and just those subsequent more specific reports that this group put out in 2020 and 2021 that you were mentioning earlier I was just pulling those up as you were talking. And home detention was another issue. We wonder whether the expansion of home detention could decrease the detainee population, or whether it would represent an increase and more restrictive conditions of release. This is a discussion, and we were just we were talked about this. We left it to them. We said again this is a discussion that we have identified as being of great importance to the mandate of the panel. It is one that we have begun but one which needs to be continued on the legislative level. The question would be what would be the mechanism for that to continue on the legislative level. To my mind again that's not one that has been particularly high up in people's consciousness of late. This next one however has mental health and substance use disorders there's been a fair amount of discussion about that. I don't know how robust the discussion is the panel believes in the expanded support of response teams that include experts in mental health and substance use disorders license counselors or clinicians, who assist in responding to behavioral health situations, and and excessive use of force. Again as I said before, there are moves on this within the state police. I don't believe there are a lot of other moves towards this going on. Part of that has to do with their just aren't enough people. The just aren't the staffing doesn't exist. We did of course address staffing in that report. And we may want to go back to that as well. I put that in front of you as something to consider. Again, do look over the report and see what you feel about what we've written and about the progress that has been made. The approach in 2019 was to talk about moving towards, excuse me, a more individualized approach to cases that's a quote. One that is more outcome based and designed to address the specific needs of each person in the criminal justice system. Again, if anyone has evidence of this being a move in this direction. Please let us know. That is not something that I have heard a lot about impact upon people of color was another issue that came up. And that a broadly shared idea among many men of the panel members was a concern with ensuring that policies being adopted in the state do not have a disproportionate impact upon people of color. The other sense is that h 381 and I don't remember what year that was from was it's an act relating to racial impact statements and again, Susanna, I would ask if that sort of falls under your wheelhouse. And how that's been going. I remember that bill. Nothing was gone. Nothing. I could be wrong, but I have not been made aware of any things that happened there. But if someone else on this call knows better than please feel free to correct me. I do remember that at the time, we had said that this was for impact statement during the legislative process right. So at the time we had developed our equity impact assessment tool. And our advice was, this is a great start but why don't we apply that to all legislative items and just have an impact assessment process for that. So we've been working so since then, our low down. 2020, we have the impact assessment tool. And in 2022 this past year, we updated it on the executive branch side it is mandatory for all new budget and policy proposals coming out of the executive agencies. We updated it and did a new training for state staff on its use. Simultaneously, we've been working with the legislature. There's a few, there's a small group of legislators who are trying to introduce a similar process. It's our firm belief that a tool like the one we use we prefer that it be ours but I mean it doesn't have to be but it really should be. And people like that be used by ledge council during the drafting and build development process. And perhaps equally importantly that ledge council be trained on how to use it. Because just being an attorney doesn't mean that you're equipped to understand racial disparity when you see one. So, that is kind of what our suggestion has been. The only indication that we get is that people are not ready for that. As a sort of alternative slash compliment to that. There are some legislators mainly those in the social equity caucus who are currently using a protocol that they describe as the probing equity questions, which is a very similar line of inquiry that takes place in the hearing rooms. It's not as structured or formal as the impact assessment tool that we use, but it is at least a conversation a way to a way to do a similar process conversation elite in here. So that's where we are on that is that there's kind of an informal process happening in some committees where it's being permitted. We're looking to have the legislature formally adopt the process that we already have been using for two years. And I will say, to the extent that it's convincing or persuasive to anyone in those other branches of government. We have been contacted by a number of different jurisdictions around the country, and by research houses including you all wanting to find out about Ramon's IA tool and process. We're starting to get a little bit legit. And so it would be great if the rest of state government doing this in that, but that's where we are on that. Okay. Thank you. I'm, there's a, there are a few other things here and I'm going to just leave them I'm going to, I'll take them up next time. These are the non consensus reports. Establish a separate and independent judicial program that permits the criminal or family courts to divert eligible cases out of the court system pre conviction. Defender General AGO judiciary supported it the state's attorneys and sheriffs disagreed. This is a space. This is why I'm saying I think we should look over this again and see where people are. I think that it would really be who've everyone in the non consensus report section of the of the report from 2019 to look over that and see if perhaps their organization or agency still disagrees. I think we should get a sense of that because these, I mean, some of this might move right it might move into something that the panel can recommend it may not. We kept them in here because we felt that was an important thing to do so that they got a that the legislature got a full sense of what our thinking was during the year that we wrote this report Rebecca. I also encourage the community members on this panel to take a look at those non consensus report recommendations. My recollection at the time was that the community members did not weigh in, but it wasn't like a deliberate vote of no. And then, you'll remind me, but I don't want you to decide it to the extent you're suggesting that only the government members on this panel should review it. I think this is for every single person, you know, on this panel understood understood. I amend what I said, but I would also like those groups where there was a disagreement from someone I would like them to look at this too, and see if that's still the case. For example, on that one I'd want to know I mean I'm reading the paragraph in that 29 report, but I would want to know more details about what that. Okay, what that looks like and and what was discussed back then. That's a discussion. Okay. That is the quick and dirty overview of protecting our work product and my impression is some things are moving. Some things are moving in spite of themselves some things are moving in spite of everyone's effort to make sure that they don't. And that I present this just to give everyone a sense of where we're at, where things have gone from that report, so that we can get a sense of what we need to write in about this report and the recommendations within it. In the year 2023. Things where we go, you know, in 2019 this was recommended we've seen such and such happen but this hasn't happened so on and so forth. There may be other things that we feel that we need to let go right now. But I just want to bring this up because it is important I believe given that we made a decision to protect the work product that we put forth in 2019. It seems to me that this is a part of doing that is assessing what's moved what hasn't moved what's moved sideways and make. Again, recommendations that are probably in some ways even more detailed. That's my personal feeling anyone else comments. Derek. Yeah I just popped a link in the chat. There was a summer session of the joint justice oversight committee that's been looking at the kind of disaggregate way that restorative and alternative justice programs. It was funded from various state agencies including corrections and the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Children and Families primarily, and then go out to a variety of community based providers sometimes in one area it's the same agency sometimes it's two sometimes it's three. I moved towards some further exploration and streamlining that seems to track without language in your non consensus report recommendation of looking at a program to divert eligible cases out of the court system pre conviction in this case even pre charge. So the link I just sent you is, I think the short form bill that came out of that joint justice, which might be a placeholder for some other work that I believe house judiciary is kind of working on right now but is yet to produce anything. I don't see what you just mentioned in the chat. No. Okay I'm seeing everybody's notes that's so interesting. I can see what you put in the chat the link. You can. Yeah. Okay. So that might mean you might be only messaging that person. I don't know if it's from me to everyone but this is really interesting. Yeah, it says to everyone. Oh, and Rebecca, did you just put it in there. But some weird. Yeah, Rebecca just reposted it. Great. We're sat. Yeah. Thanks for that this is really funky too because it's also displaying as having been sent on March 17 to 12 04am in my time stamp, even I didn't do it. And just throw into context your way in terms of a co-occurring legislative conversation that seems to dovetail with how we're organizing this restorative space, because I know we've talked and reference the criminal justice adult system and youth system, but increasingly there's sort of a loosely defined system of things that are sequentially intercepted before they hit that formal system to, and that opens up a lot of discretion and bias questions to. Okay, yeah. Anyway, Sheila. I had two questions one I wanted to know about process for our panel if we you listed a lot of things and it makes me really proud to be a part of a lot of different discussions and initiatives and things that we wanted to discuss, but wondering how we want to go about doing that I know that often we've been like what are we sort of working on what is in the legislation and what are the top three things that we as a group might want to consensus on to bite off small chunks because obviously the list that you named we can't do it all. So I'm wondering what direction from now to the next meeting in terms of homework, would we be looking at is there a specific assignment with these things that you named off that you would like us to be coming back with and my second statement is just, I'm wondering if we're going to invite Matthew Bernstein here who is now the advocate of the child youth and families, and when we talked about oversight. It made me think about how important it might be for him to be part of these discussions and be part of that division of DCF here during these meetings. Can you be in touch with him to ask him about coming to a meeting. I sure can, because our next meeting is the 11th of April. I can. And if you and then you and I can just talk back and forth to just confirm it and I can put it in the agenda. Okay, my and then as your first question what I would suggest is that everyone go back over the report that I've sent to you and pick three, pick three, your top three issues. Let's just start there. I'm not saying that's where it's going to end. I'm just saying let's start there. And let's bring that for next time that would be my homework assignment. Sheila's that work for you. That works for me. Thank you. You're welcome. Again, as I was trying to say I'm not trying to depress everybody I'm just trying to get us all to, you know, look at where our recommendations went where the land has moved in the time between that report and now, given that we have to produce another one for December. So, if I'm depressed and bored everyone I'm really sorry. But I didn't know another way to do this. But I felt like someone had to crack this open. So, I'm the bad guy, cracking it open. Anything else from anyone as we are now coming up on five minutes past eight. No. Well then, motion to adjourn. Thank you, Jessica. Second it. Okay, all in favor of adjourning signified by waving your hand and screaming and like jumping around. Cool. You're welcome all those posts. Let's do it formally. No. Okay. And all abstaining. We are adjourned.