 All right, let's get started. Welcome everyone to the last meeting of the working group, the Act 65 working group of 2021. We will not be meeting next week because next week is the 15th and this has to be submitted on that day. And I tend to do that rather early in the morning. So let's do as we usually do and go around and introduce ourselves to everyone. Abigail Crocker, please. Hi, Abby Crocker at the University of Vermont and National Center in Restorative Justice. Thank you. Ian. Hello, Ian Laura, satan's note taker. Thank you. Karen. Karen Gannett, crime research group. All right. Representative Christie. Kevin Coach Christie, Representative Hartford. Thanks. Evan. Evan Meenon, Deputy State's Attorney. Elizabeth. Elizabeth Morris, Department for Children and Families. Great. Sheila. Sheila Linton, she or pronouns the Root Social Justice Center community at large appointed by Attorney General. Julio. Julio Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit. Rebecca. Rebecca Turner from the Office of the Defendant General. Gail Pru. Gail Pru, Pesci, Vermont Racial Justice Alliance. Thank you. And Monica. Hi, Monica Weber, and I'm with the Department of Corrections. Great. My thought was to go through the remaining comments quickly, expeditiously and iron out what we can iron out. And then at the end, the things that can't be ironed out are the things that I would want us to make a list that we need to bring to the full body tomorrow. Does that sound like a reasonable way of proceeding? Okay. Good. Pardon? So far, yes. I love your conditional stance. That's as far as I can commit. I get it. And the first thing is, God, I wish I could make this thing new pages. I don't know why I've never been able to. On page three is programs, by the way, of Sheila. For those of you who are wondering, that is Sheila Linton, just to make that clear to everybody. Sheila, do you want to read your comment and go from there? Okay. Just give me a second. I did not. I didn't know I was going to be called on. I feel like I'm sorry. I know it's like high school and all that. I have to find my comments. I mean, I can read it. Yeah. Just read it. That'd be a little bit easier for me. Okay. She's referring to and this is where we were calling it the office of racial and social justice statistics. And she said, I thought we were going to express this in terms of race being the base and how the intersectionality of who we are also plays a crucial role in how we are treated. So, so yeah, so I made numerous comments around the choice of the title in the first place, which kind of goes into this conversation as well. And I'm very adamant that I believe that it should be racial justice statistics or whatever that is for racial justice because we are the racial justice panel. That's what we're doing. And because we're looking at racial underneath racial justice statistics. And I believe that if we have that as the base and the intersectionalities of who we are as those people of racial data, that is what we're asking for. So that's what that's speaking to is, is that we can still focus, have our primary focus be racial statistic data collecting and also be able to suggest or create those intersectionalities, but from the base of race. And I think that that's the differences of the nuance in the language for me that I'm very strong about that, that I understand people using the term of social justice. I'm quite aware of why and it, it could be maybe an acceptable term in this case, but I think it's also confusing for the work that we're doing and what the focus has been and what is stipulated throughout the whole document except for within the title. Sheila, this is Rebecca. Can I, can I just clarify what you're seeking here for what you would prefer just to have it be called office of racial justice statistics and to drop social. Yes, because I think it, I think it just messes it up. You know, it's not, that's not, it's like why I just I'm trying to understand why if the base of what we're doing, what we even talked about was around racial justice or around BIPOC around those entities of people and then around their sexuality around their class around whatever those are, but it was based on race still. So it still doesn't make sense to me to put social justice because that is sort of a coin broad term in a way. And racial justice sometimes can be within social justice and it can be without, without, and it depends on, you know, how we're prioritizing the words that we're saying. And so I just, I don't think there's a need for it because I think it confuses what we're doing, what we're talking about and what the whole document talks about except for in the title, which I just think it just shows up so much the social justice, the social justice stat. And I appreciate having the racial and social justice so that for me is a happy medium, but I still think it's confusing and not necessary to do that. Rebecca, no, Rebecca had her hand up, but she spoke. Sorry. Sheila, I was a real proponent of the absolute opposite, just so you know. And I was only, I, there are those parts of the document that talk about the scalability of the, of the entity that later on it would be able to take on different kinds of justice. And I, and I think others felt that that language encapsulated that, but you don't. The only other thing I wanted to point out is, and perhaps representative, you can weigh in on this if, if you know, there was certainly towards the end of last session, there was some real arguing going on among the legislators that there were people who felt they could not even support this if it were broader than just the criminal and the racial and juvenile. And so that's what the thinking was. Evan. Thanks, A-Town. So I, my thoughts on this are that I do see the advantages to including a recommendation in the report that says something to the effect of this entity, whatever it ends up being called, should have the capacity to evolve in order to track data points that might reveal when someone is being disproportionately impacted in the juvenile or criminal justice system for demographic reasons that do not have something to do with their race. For example, it's conceivable that someone might have disproportionate impacts because of their gender, but not their race or their gender identity or ethnicity and not their race. However, I'm also cognizant of the fact that our legislative charge was fairly specific to race. So I don't know that I'm as wedded to the name that we recommend as opposed to having some sort of flag that says legislature, you should be thinking about not just today's needs, but potential future needs and creating a framework where this entity might be able to rise to the occasion of meeting those future needs. It may not be called to do so right now, but it might in the future and would it be advantageous to create a system with that level of flexibility? So I think that's an important call out, but I don't know that we necessarily, the name right now in the report I think is perhaps less important than that call out. I love that. Sheila, could you live with that? Could I weigh in? I'm sorry, I didn't even see your hand. I was just going to say that I appreciate Sheila's comments and her sort of my sense is this has been a point that you feel strongly about because I've heard you raise this now a few times and particularly this. And I also, I think, Evan, your point, but I also hear Sheila's in terms of having it be the focus and creating it in the name. I hear it and I respect that. I would not be opposed to dropping social and going with how Sheila is recommending office of racial justice statistics for me. It's more important though to make sure that whatever is done in terms of data collection that it's understood that we can't understand the full context of the impact of race on these systems without also considering these intersectionality points, gender, sexuality, class, all of age, all of the stuff we've talked about in prior reports. So to me, I just want to make sure the legislature understands that we have to otherwise then what are we, you know, I worry about the risks of implicit biases of it. Are we talking about men, right? Are we talking not not children? Are we talking about heterosexuality, right? And not and not open to others. So that's that's where my concern comes in. But I certainly support would support Sheila's recommendation again, given the fact that we are focused primarily on racial disparities that it is of critical. It is our central mandate. And I certainly don't want that to be lost. It was certainly my intent that our report make sure that that was the focus. So that would be my feelings. Just make sure that our report stresses the need for the collection of additional demographic data to fully understand and contextualize what we mean by racial disparities. Okay. Let's make all of this quick. Gail. Hi, yeah. I do realize I am coming to this quite late. And so I apologize if this is a naive point of view, but I'm just curious. It seems like the point of view of the most of the people here is that we have limited resources. And so this office is going to be the only way to expand on other social issues. And I'm just curious if there has been a perspective brought up that if we really want to address things like trans issues or anything pertaining to gender equity or other social justice issues that there could not be more government initiatives to address those rather than trying to bundle everything up in one place. Because I think that there are different groups of people that deserve to get the resources that they need. And I don't know if having one office for everyone is necessarily the solution. Okay. Thank you. Abby. I just want to add to what Rebecca was saying. And I think actually the document as is highlights a lot of these issues in that if you're talking about the most rigorous analytic or data approach to answering a question using like multiple variables like socioeconomic status, gender identity will be the best way to do that. So I feel like if you as the document does highlights the need for rigorous analysis that will include some of the other categories you're mentioning but still allow the highlight to be on race. I think the document does a good job and maybe if it's more comfortable you could add a little bit more clarity to that point. But I think it could do both. Can I recommend that we do what Sheila recommends and what Evan recommends and that we say office of racial justice statistics. And in the conclusion section seven at the very, very end that's open. We write what Evan just said. That our hopes for the scalability. That's it. How about we do that. Brands. We're on it. All right. I got a somebody remind me on taking out and social everywhere. Ian, will you remind me of that? Because for some reason I can't strike through at the moment. Yeah, I can do that. Okay. Thank you. Let us move along Sheila. Your next comment is basically about the same issue. So we're going to. Got it. As is the next comment. Okay, we are on. The next comment. I think we're on page six, I guess. Maybe should name what this is. And that is for. In reference to. Working with the government body to establish an infrastructure to both answer the first questions put forth. In the R daps reported December, 2020. We're on it. We're on it. We're on it. We're on it. We're on it. We're on it. We're on it. We're on it. Sheila. Scalable foundation. You're muted. Yeah, I just did it. I just wanted it to be clear in the document what we were referring back to. Like if we're going. Something. I don't know what that is. There's this assumption that we know what that is. Or. If there's going to be a hyperlink to like the document or something in there. And it's going to be the first thing. And how to access. Given how well it got read the first time. Sorry. That was uncalled for. I think a hyperlink's a great idea. Can we do that? Okay. Now. Next. When we're talking about data. Sheila asks how is different data. Is it different for a minor? Do we need to be put to put something in in this section? You all see where we are. About DCF, et cetera. Yeah. So I just had a question around like I was just when I was reading, there's been all these stipulations and I've been learning a little bit more about the collection of data through this process and what the dues and the don'ts are. And so. We. We tend to not have much emphasis or focus on the Juvenile. And so it doesn't come up as much, but it got me thinking about the different systems that we have. Is there a different systems or things? And I don't think I, other than just a little bit somewhere on the document, I don't think I explicitly read. Any differences or something. And I was just curious if somebody had that answer and if, where it is in the document, or if it's something that should be there. Elizabeth. Yeah. I mean, obviously there are, you know, confidentiality laws. I'm not necessarily certain that anything needs to be added in. So that's the opinion that the entity, however it shall be named will. Learn of that as they go through the process. So, I guess I'll leave it there. I don't necessarily think that. Delving it, it seems to me, like, if we were to get into the specifics of how that juvenile or what juvenile data easily could. identify youth, et cetera, we might end up going down a little bit of a rabbit hole that landed us in our really wonderful path, data pathways that we had a few years ago. Rebecca. I'd only add that our most recent report, we identified all of those discretionary decision points that we thought should be included. And I thought that's where we captured a lot of the specific data points relevant for the juvenile justice system, Sheila. So I feel confident that that is there, although we could spell it out more clearly in 11, that the recommendations in those reports are specifically referencing that section within that report. Maybe that could be clearer. Yeah, that would be helpful. Can someone write that in as a comment, Evan? I was just going to add that I think I might have been reading this numbered point. Similar to, I think I just understood the way that Rebecca was reading it, which was this doesn't necessarily, although the data points could be different, I was reading this more as a reference to reports that might contain any recommendations that are specific to the juvenile justice system. So for example, if we discovered certain disparities related to race, the solution for the criminal justice system and how those proceedings are structured could theoretically be slightly different from the recommendations for the solution in a juvenile justice system. So that's when I read the reports, I understood that to be not only reports that perhaps are already issued, but maybe ones that we would issue in the future with recommendations for specific fixes to either, so. That was my read as well. But we're putting in the refer back, as you can see. So we'll make it even clearer. All right? This is delicious, by the way. Okay. Down on page. God, I wish this thing were different. Seven, right? Yes. We're talking about the governing body. The ARDAP believes that a governing body composed of a variety of stakeholders, community members as well as other actors should be the body that drives the actions of the office itself. And Sheila, you have a comment there. Well, I realized that it does mention it later. It just threw me off and it isn't necessarily consistent throughout the whole document and or what terms we decided on. Like, is it, I think we've been using most lived experience, which I do like. I think most impacted, but lived experience is better. But I did see then down below that it did have it, but I just wanted to be mindful of that, just having that consistent language of who we're talking about when we're naming those people for those groups that we keep on saying like lived experience and it be throughout the document like that. Could we say community members with lived experience as well as other actors? Does that work? Yeah, that totally works. And I mean, and we already really have it in there. It's kind of like that below. But yes, I just, I don't think, I think there was a few places I might have seen later that might not add up to that in the document. So just us to be mindful with the final edit. Okay. Rebecca. Oh. Great language Tyler Elizabeth. I'm sorry, I'm up. Yes. I am. Let me see, page bottom, let me hold on, let me scroll down. ERM H7. All right. Oh, no. It's just. Never mind. No, I think there was no conflict unless others disagreed with what Tyler Elizabeth suggested. No, I think it's fine. The only concern that I would have about anything that's perceived as a mandate that the youth him or herself participate is does that put the youth in a position of rightfully or wrongfully perceiving that they have an obligation to share their lived experience in a proceeding that is otherwise designated confidential by law. So I wouldn't want any juvenile to feel obligated to participate in something when they wouldn't. And if there was a representative that wanted to act on that juvenile's behalf, I'm personally comfortable with including the representative. So I just, that's my only cautionary note. I'm not saying that it should be or, but I just, you know, if we're asked about that in committee, I would just note that I wouldn't want to, many youths might not be comfortable acting in this capacity. There might be some that are, but I wouldn't want to set us up with a situation where there's a mandated position held open for a juvenile specifically, and it becomes difficult to find someone who is comfortable participating in something. You know, I've been, this is Rebecca. I think this, that concern also could carry over to the adult who's in the criminal for different reasons. And I know that this has been a concern that's been expressed in other venues as well. And I understand and we want to make sure that there's no self-incrimination or any other issues that come up in the plan that we certainly don't want that. However, I think that it's ironic that there are very few situations within very people who are directly impacted most have a chance to be at the table. So I appreciate the concern, but I think it is important for us to send that message, the who better to hear from. Oh yeah, and I definitely don't disagree. I just want to make sure that when we have an opportunity to talk more about this, we make sure that we flag the need to make this a comfortable setting for that person if they choose to participate. I just think that would be important. Yep, no, that's great. And their best pose. A little bit. Yeah, I was just going to add in, I appreciate that, Evan. And Tyler and I talked a lot about kind of some of the dangers that the youth might have about being in a group such as this. And that is the majority of the reason why we added this section into parentheses that says if a youth holds a position directly with the governing body, it is advised that they'd be paired with another member of the governing body to support the youth. And perhaps there needs to be language to emphasize that that other member would also be there to ensure that some of the concerns that you had, Evan, don't happen. And it is also, and Rebecca, I completely understand why you changed the language from or to and, but it is also part of the reason why we included and instead of or. Because as someone who does do the administration for a federally required state advisory group that does require exactly what we're talking about, it is hard to manage it. I will be honest, we have to have youth and we have to have people with lived experience on the board and it is difficult. You know, I would only add, Etan, I saw your note there. Let's make sure we don't have best interests instead to represent the youth because that is interpreted in the courts as being the court's determination of what the youth's best interest force is the youth's actual representative, the attorney who represents the youth's interest. So just say, I would say interest, whether we need a represented interest, a legal interest or what. I appreciate the concern. It's a legal significant term to put best interest for. I know, that's why they pay you to be gods. I hate legalese, but I actually think that strips the youth's voice by putting best interest. It allows someone else to inject what they think is best. Okay, so we'll just leave it where it is right now. Rebecca, okay. Sounds good, yeah, thanks. Okay, because I just work here. Oh, my next, that's at number five as mine. Should I continue or should we come to number five? Sure, yes. There was no comments, but I did add it. It was about the lived experience trying to capture the adult in the criminal justice system. I wanted to clarify based on the conversation from last week as to confusion of who might be interpreted as having lived experience, that from my perspective, it's critical. We have someone who's actually been subject to supervision of department corrections. Because that's, to me, is a perspective we wanna not miss. I like it. Evan, you're looking thoughtful. No, I'm just squinting to try and read. I've got too many things up on my screen, but it looks like this was- Glasses, dude. I'm recommending, I'm telling you. All right. I was just that I noticed that it looked like it had been moved and slightly modified from the next section. And so I was just playing catch-up, that was it. Oh, okay. No, I have to go through and make it all pretty, but not yet. No, but Evan, that's right. I forgot to add that. I cut and pasted because I thought the lived experience of the adult member should be right there with the youth lived experience category. So I thought that belonged together. And then you're right, I tweaked it to make sure it was better clarified in what type of lived experience is desired. Okay. Next comment is from Sheila. She's reminding us again, our work is to focus on racial disparities. So, Sheila, go for it. Well, it's good now. It's good. Keep going. Okay. You want us to include something about immigrants and the refugee population though, yes? Yes. Well, I had a question around that. Like we were named in sort of these various different groups of people. And I'm wondering if that was specifically a groups of people that we need to name? It may well be. I made an out when I wrote the draft for myself because I knew I was going to forget about 90 people. And that's why it was up above where it says the governing body stakeholders should be drawn from the following list of historically stigmatized communities and stakeholders but not be limited to this list. That's just the way out. And I don't know why we can't put them in. Does anyone else? No, it's a great idea. Great. So, like after, oh god, these bubbles, victims advocates or something? Sure. And the one of the ones that I lied, it should be racial since we decided on the title. I don't know if it goes along with the same kind of sentiment as before around actually supporting social disparities whose interest works towards. So it should be racial disparities. Can you just read the sentence where you're at? Oh, yes, got it, got it. Karen's already there. She's dealing with it. Lovely. And then. And not to be harsh, but to keep it real, like I was confused, I guess I'm not confused, but my next comment is about, you know, I'm looking at the list of who is in that list. And I see that law enforcement was crossed out. And so I made it like a strong comment over here that many people perceive DCF as like the cops for kids. And so I'm just wondering if we're focusing on adult and the juvenile, I'm wondering if that is a place where they should be represented. On the governing body. Correct. Sheila, say that again. You wonder, you think that who should be on this? I'm trying to understand why I see law enforcement is crossed out, which makes me assume that we came to a decision that we would like to not have law enforcement be a part of this governing body. And I know from my work and experience with advocating for youth or families who have been impacted by DCF that they would feel very similar to DCF being on that governing board on a juvenile level. And so, and I'm personally not comfortable with it. And so I'm just wondering people's feelings or thoughts around that. And Elizabeth, I don't know if you have opinions around that as well. We will find out now. Elizabeth. Yeah, I do. My understanding based on this list is that this governing body was based off of entities that are going to be responsible or have some kind of information that is needed to be given to the entity. And that's why that they're listed on there. Last week, I actually made an argument to get rid of all of them and to just have the community members be present and not have any of these 10 people listed. So I'll say, I'll just bring that up to your background, Sheila. But my argument would be is that if we have entities like Department of Corrections and the Department of Education and Office of Defender General, et cetera, because we want them to be involved in the process of getting the data to the entity, then DCF needs to be involved as well, just because of the entity being able to get that information from us. If we want, if the background of the governing body is because we want their thoughts and opinions on the work that's being done, then I think that that's a different conversation. But I will leave it there. Evan? I think it's important to not only include DCF, but also law enforcement for three reasons. And I'm not saying all law enforcement, but a law enforcement representative. In other words, we don't need someone from like the sheriffs and the municipalities and the state police. One representative might be sufficient, but there's three reasons why I think it's important to include entities like that. The first is the data collection piece that Elizabeth just flagged. Any entity that's going to be reporting data, I think needs to be able to voice to this entity, whether or not they even collect that data and they have the ability to report it out or what resources they would need in order to do so. The second reason why I think it's important is for buy-in. Because I think if there is someone that is participating in these conversations and has access to this information and feels included, there's a greater chance that they will be able to relay that information to their counterparts and foster institutional buy-in. And I think that this group is actually an example of how that can work. We have a diverse range of members from DCF, DOC, the defender general's office, the state's attorney's office, the AG's office. And those entities are not infrequently of differing minds on some issues. And I think we've been working really well together and we're putting out some good work product. And then the third reason is when this group starts, if there's any policy recommendations or legislative changes that are the result of this office's work, these entities that might have to help implement them are going to be in a position to articulate or can we actually implement these solutions that you're discussing. And if so, what resources might we need to do so and on what timeline can we do it? And I think that those are all important considerations that are going to make any work product of this entity more successful. Susanna. Thank you. I just wanted to say in response to the question, I suppose what I would ask is can the purpose that DCF would have served also be served by the other representatives on the governing body? In other words, is there something unique that DCF would be bringing that we would be missing out on in their absence? And then also to the question of what data or what data instruction need to be provided regarding DCF data, if we need them on board for the purposes of being able to either interpret or manage the data coming out of the agency, then it would make sense to include them. But yeah, I suppose, I wouldn't be opposed necessary. We want this to have credibility. And so I'm not opposed to removing law enforcement from the governing body, even though I also wouldn't be opposed to leaving them on, but I just wanna make sure that if we want enough perspective represented, then if we choose not to put certain bodies on certain entities on the governing body, then is there a way that we can still get whatever insight they would have provided through another governing body member? Who's that? Elizabeth. Yeah, I think this goes back to my kind of original, maybe assumption or maybe not assumption. I could have sworn me at a conversation about what the role of these departments is on the governing body, and maybe that needs to be clarified. If their role is specifically to be able to respond and interact regarding data requests, then I think that needs to be laid out. And that's the reason why I would argue that DCF absolutely needs to be there because DCF does have some really, really high issues with our data system. We have a very old data system and that's gonna need to be explained if there's any kind of requests coming to DCF about what we're able to provide and what we're not able to provide and what support we could use in order to get the entity the information that they are requesting. Oh, Julio doesn't have his hand up. All right, Monica. I do have my hand up. I'll wait for Monica's comment. Well, you were first Julio, so I don't care. But I did wanna follow up because I do agree with what Elizabeth is saying around what my recollection was of putting these particular entities on the governing body. And I see, I think Rebecca, you're the one who made these edits instead of having a bunch of organizations kind of listed in number three. You listed them out individually, but also added a few that we hadn't discussed as a group either. And I think that that kind of raises up a whole nother question for me about why are these people on the group? Because I was sort of more towards what Elizabeth was saying, right? As we're starting with racial justice statistics, these are the most likely organizations who are gonna be providing the data. So I think adding some of these other things is also kind of problematic to me because we hadn't had those kinds of conversations. But I would agree if the Department of Corrections or the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's is gonna be there, the Department for Children and Family should be there too. Julio. Yeah, well, I'm glad you went before I did because I think the logic that you're following would be the same logic that you would include a representative, not multiple representatives from law enforcement. It seems like the assumption of the group is that the role of law enforcement on the group injects some kind of illegitimacy to it because maybe perhaps because of the history of law enforcement and people of color. But when I look on the list, I think that if there's a history or at least grounds for questioning other government agencies' roles and outcomes, we have the judiciary area on there. We have the Attorney General's Office on there. We have the representative of local prosecutors. I think that prosecutorial decision making either at the age of your county level is fair game for the analysis. That's probably true for DCF. That's probably true for Defender General's Office. I could imagine, at least theoretically, someone asking the question about how vigorous has the effort been to contest versus plead out cases based on the color or demographics of the client and they're on the group. It's just sort of curious to me that all of the elements of the system would be on except for one. That doesn't really seem to make sense to me. And it sort of presupposes that no one from law enforcement could have a good idea about what questions to ask. And maybe I'm reaching already too far back in history, but at least some of these RDAP meetings, I sat next to Major Jonas from State Police who for me asked a lot of good ideas that I don't think were circumscribed by the fact that she was a sworn officer. So it's only one person. And I was in the last meeting and Sheila, I don't think you were there at advocating for more community voices on there, which I think is absolutely the right idea, but it's sort of curious to me that you would zero in on one participant in the criminal justice system and exclude them out of concern for what they may say or may do. Because I mean, the broader perspective from our unit at least, and I think it's shared by, I've certainly heard many people on this call raise it in different contexts is that a historical failing of looking at these issues that it's too focused on the police and not focused on the other aspects of the criminal justice system where there's a lot of discretion that isn't the subject of annual reports, there aren't community review boards for prosecutors, for example, or judges in the same way that there are movements for police. And yet, it sort of assumed that it's okay, at least it's not harmful for those other components to be part of the discussion or the body, but not the people in uniform who may, well, be just carrying out kind of what the dictates are of the legislature and what's reinforced by prosecutors or the judiciary. Okay, Rebecca, and then I wanna give this 10 minutes and then I wanna book it, book it, mark it and go on. Okay, sure, thanks. Let me just clarify, because I was the one who eliminated it, Monica, you were right, the intent was not to eliminate the rule of law enforcement, but to be specific as to the specific agencies and offices and departments who will be contributing relevant data to the data and today, because it's true, we identified through the AISP toolkit that the recommendation was to include on this governing board any agency that could potentially be an obstructionist being the ones who have the data that we would need. So that was definitely the intent to actually not obscure what we mean when we say law enforcement. Secondly, Julio, to your point, there is in fact multiple levels of law enforcement already represented on this list. Let's just be clear, law enforcement is not just police, but prosecutors. And as Sheila pointed out in terms of how people perceive department of children and families, there is a component there as well. But so to the extent that law enforcement's already identified through the Department of States attorneys and sheriffs, through the Office of the Attorney General, through the Department of Corrections, Department of Children and Families. Now, I admit there is one department that is missing and that's Department of Public Safety and we should have one representative, we should add that list. But I think that was the intent was to not obscure how many members could come in to represent law enforcement when we already have the AG's office, States Attorney's and sheriffs, et cetera, et cetera. Secondly, Monica, your point is true and we haven't gotten there, but I'll throw it in now. I did add Human Rights Commission. I did add the Department of Education. Those, the reasons to add those two and we hadn't previously talked about it, it was going through the exercise, thinking about whose data we would be wanting to get back, you know, again, anchored by our December report where we identified the discretionary decision points. We identified education as a place and so I thought that was a missing gap on that. And then of course, Human Rights Commission less obvious, but clearly a source of useful data that we've always been interested in, right? In terms of the complaints and systems and having their perspective, whether it's in this category or a different category that you wanna put these, that's fair. The last one, which was garnered some back and forth between Karen and I in terms of clarification as to the methodologists. We haven't talked about that last week, we as a group talked about making sure that the community voices, the non-government voices on this body would not be drowned out by sort of the recognition that there was an imbalance of power naturally following certain panel members and to make sure that what we're expressed interest by BIPOC or community members as to what kind of data could be collected that we have an actual expert in a methodologist expert. And again, Abby sort of shed light last week on what that was and what we were missing, ensuring that we don't just collect data without realizing and having someone to give us the community-based perspective to that research. And as Karen clarified in the back and forth, specifically racial disparity. So that's why I wanted to thought that was a useful addition. Again, what section do we wanna put it in? I threw it in as a sort of a moment of inspiration, not as we wanted to wear in that list. Okay, six minutes on this topic. Evan. More of a question for the group to think about. Well, I should first say human rights commission, no problems from the department's perspective and including them, totally appropriate, no issue there. But question about the methodologist because I see that it's called out in two places, one in number 10, and then in the following paragraph that flags that the governing body should consult with methodologists. So I'm just wondering, is there a need to have it in both places? Is there a preference for having the methodologist on the governing body as opposed to someone that the governing body consults with? Is there any duplication there? Should we pick one or the other? That's the question. Elizabeth. I was just lowering my hand because Evan and I must have been on the same wavelength. I was gonna say essentially the same thing. But I do think to Sheila's point, I think calling out for why these members are actually on the governing body, which I think we've all kind of reestablished is due to the fact that they are going to provide data to the entity should be established somewhere in this document. And whether or not it's just a statement above and I'm happy to draft something and add it in, reestablishing the reason why they're there and that they're not there to necessarily give their opinion perhaps in the same way as the community members should be. Could you, Elizabeth, do that? That would really thank you for offering. And that would be, I would like that, I know, personally. Karen, four minutes, people. Minutes. Just briefly, the reason I took the data experts and the researchers out of the list of people is it felt to me like the data experts were gonna be employees of the office and they in that capacity shouldn't be on the governing body. And the reason I put the experts in the small paragraph below was because I can only imagine that the governing body might want to consult with more than one researcher, more than one methodologist, more than one group of people who have experts in a variety of different areas. So I didn't put in methodologists, I just put in researchers in that area when Rebecca and I were having our back and forth and she put the methodologists back in the list, it made sense to me that whether it's a methodology, researchers are a methodologists. They have to know the methodology of the how of doing research in their field. So I'm, you know, this methodologist versus researcher is kind of an odd distinction to me. But anyways, it doesn't really matter. Methodologists with the expertise, I thought that person, if they were gonna consult with the governing body should have some expertise in racial equity specifically because I think that's a really, as the AISP has said, that's a really important piece is to be able to look at data through a racial equity lens. So I just added that into that line that Rebecca put in, but I agree, it is somewhat duplicative, but also we wanna allow the governing body to pick other people to consult with. I have to say it doesn't, that's duplicative to me, but that's just me. Monica. Well, Karen said a couple of things that I was gonna mention too, just around wanting to have the opportunity to actually consult with a variety of different methodologists and not be confined to just hearing one voice. And so I was just thinking, and I was kind of looking through the other document because for as many times as I've read it, I can't remember if we had one of the committees that we had in this sort of structure to be a real committee around sort of research, because I think that's an area where we need more than one person versus just having one person on the governing body. If they do stay in, I think the list where they are now doesn't seem to make sense based on their previous conversation we had because of the role of the rest of the people on that list. Let me ask now as we're trying to close with this, is there a sense of I can live with it if law enforcement is not struck out but is replaced with Department of Public Safety? Yes, I think that's acceptable. Okay. Julio. Yeah, I think that's fine. Rebecca. That would be consistent with my answer, thanks. Okay, Sheila. Yeah, I really appreciate this rich discussion and I definitely got my answers more than, I just wanted to know why, like I wasn't really like, I mean, I'm very transparent about my feelings about certain entities, but I wasn't really calling out one entity, I was really using that as an example to be like, oh, could somebody tell me why? And I got that. And so thank you everybody. Okay. So law enforcement is now going to be Department of Public Safety. Karen, can I prevail upon? Thank you. God bless. All right. Onward to that B section. Staffing for the Office of Racial Justice Statistics. Does anyone else have trouble saying that? I don't know. My tongue can't do it anyway. Karen, do you wanna talk about what you did? Sure. You and Rebecca. So, well actually those two comments. Right. So let me try this without bones. So actually the comments that you see right there are actually for the section we just talked about. I got it, I got it. Yeah, and I think we felt like we came to, we were fine. Okay, okay. The blue font below is what, so at the last meeting, Robin said she would take on doing a write up for the responsibilities of the new staff. And so, witchy, Robin, Julio and Monica, and I did a little bit actually worked on what the staff responsibilities should look like as opposed to actually giving them a name, a staff name. So that, this is their write up. This is what they wrote up. And can I just say, Bravo, you guys rock. That is, it's so clear. And I think it captures everything that everyone has so far said. Oh, good. Finally. And I just personally wanted to say, Bravo, because that's a lot of work you guys did. And I love you. I probably am not supposed to say, but I did. It was really was witchy, Robin, Julio and Monica. They really did a huge lift on this. And I think they did a really good job. So. It enormous lift. And it makes perfect sense to me, except for the parts I can't understand. But yeah, she was nodding her head. She knows what I mean, right? But no, I think it's wonderful. So where are we now? Evan, they're social again. I'm gonna have to, every time I say social, I have to go through this and Evan. Me? I'm up? Yeah. What did I say? You're talking about the diagram. It's not specifically aimed in the diagram. So I would gather and we should, I mean, Rebecca should fill in on this because Rebecca came up with the original version of this. Rebecca in the middle where it says, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. Was there a moment when that was what we were calling something? I can't remember now. Cause there have been so many iterations. Yes. I think. That's how the office. That's so funny. That's so like early 21. Yeah, I think what, actually here's here. Can I just tell you what? I did not think of that central bullet, central circle as being the entity itself. In fact, what I wish I could have done was draw on a circle, but I didn't know technologically speaking wise how to make a circle around the board and the middle circle, which I now think is the permanent staff, right? And then you draw a circle around the board and the permanent staff. And that is the entity, right? Right. So, oh boy. Yeah, if I start doing this, it'll be awful. I mean, talk about it. Sorry, I just realized too, again, we should talk about, we talked about all those people who should be on the board as if it was a singular board. But early days, we worried, or at least how I express as I was worried, that if we combined one board that the juvenile justice side of the house could get short shrift. And then we wanted to elevate it because there would be certain relevant players who make specific interests to be on both and different. So we thought, oh, there should be two governing boards, one specific to juvenile justice, one to criminal. So that's what that's reflecting. We didn't reference that in the pros earlier. So if we wanna keep that concept, which I would encourage us to still do, then we should probably add that and make that clear on the pros section. I also am not opposed to just eliminating, if it's too confusing. Well, I was gonna ask that question, but I said, do we need the diagram? But I understand that for some folks, it's easier to access a visual than it is to access text. So I don't wanna take something out and make this less accessible, but I was thinking, do we need this diagram? But it sounds like at a minimum, it would be more like a tree or a hierarchy with the entities reporting to the staff that are in the entity that is supervised by a board. Yes, and after my long explanation about law enforcement and eliminating, be more specific, we'd also have to adjust all of the bubbles inside the other one. And then exactly, this section D needs some updating if we're gonna keep it. Monica. You said that like you wanted some help, A-Time. I'm not sure I'm gonna be going to help. My thought about trying to make circles and stuff. Well, I think, yeah. So I had a similar kind of feeling that I think I'm hearing from Rebecca and Evan, which is one that the diagram itself is not really described well in the pros and it's not really representing what we're talking about. And so if we wanted to keep it, we would definitely need to update it. I was gonna make a suggestion that this diagram and the other diagram that I had made just for my own purposes a while ago that's also in here could both be eliminated because I think that they may, yeah, people see pictures and they sometimes think that that's actually the way something is. And they're just sort of representations. And I don't really want people to get a sense that this is 100% an accurate representation, at least from my diagram. And I don't know if that's true. They're on Rebecca made too. So I was, my suggestion is to take them both out. I have to say I liked that, but I remember them being very useful at one point in our deliberations because it was like, it was too abstract. And then suddenly we were able to look at it and move things around, but maybe there are relics of a different month. Yeah, no, I'm forced right now. Can we just get rid of them? I'd like to be heard on that. Okay, Mr. I think the point's been raised about accessibility. There are people who are visual learners or whom a big chunk of text is a lot more difficult to grasp concepts than to look at something that's similar to a mind map. And so I would favor having a graphic somewhere. I mean, it's already, to me, it's already pretty limiting that there's only one, but I think getting rid of it, because maybe we're that kind of learner, or I'm sorry, too, is I think, I don't know that you need to have every entity in there. The AG's office isn't in the current draft. That doesn't raise a concern for our office that will be left off the governing board. But it does, but if someone wants to have an exhaustive list, I think there's a way to do that graphically. But so I would have it in. And for people who don't like to go into the graphs, you can just skip it. Okay, here comes the next question then. Who wants to redo the graphs? Can I just, so I did make a new version of the graph that I had originally produced. And I put a title on it, calling it Dataflow Diagram, because that's really kind of what I was trying to represent there, right? We have data that's coming from these different places. I'll have to change it now, because I thought we were gonna use social justice statistics, but I'll have to change it to racial justice statistics. That's easy enough to do. And I added some other entities, like I had added the attorney general's office, and then just put like a catchall. Hey, there's probably other entities out there that we're gonna need to. So if we wanna keep it, I can change the name of it. But I did wanna really make it clear that this was a Dataflow Diagram more than anything around governance. So it looks like we have to, the first one needs to be altered. Suzanna. I was just gonna say, I agree with Julio about accommodating more diverse learning styles. And I can't guarantee that I would do a good job, but I would be extremely happy to help work on some of the graphics or visuals. Or if we wanted to turn it into like an audio, a very short audio or visual explainer that could accompany this, then I would be happy to work on any or all of that. Great. I don't think it has to be Picasso, but. I literally can't even move the cursor properly to do it. And this really reached my max on circles and circles. But I am willing to work with someone who is more technologically advanced than I am to make sure. Yeah, Julio, thank you for making that point because it's true. And yeah, yeah, that's all. Do we think we can do something by tomorrow though? So that we can have something to share and absorb? Susanna, can I connect with you? Right, are you not gonna sleep tonight? I connect with you tomorrow morning. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Okay, great. Thank you, guys. I mean. Can I clarify one more point? Besides this scene, some obvious entities in that upper right circle, where do we land on the two boards? Reference, do we keep it? Do we not? Well, we don't reference two boards in our document. I guess that's, I just want to, I think it's important for us to have a picture that represents what we're talking about. Right, but is that because the pros was missing until this point that we forgot to loop in that detail that we started talking about this at the beginning of the summer and we got caught up with other details on the board? Because I still do think it's highlighting that we don't want to lose that juvenile justice board. Might also be a way to deal with the concern of too many people on any one board. Well, I don't know how other people think, it just seems like it requires a whole lot more effort to start talking about a whole nother board right now, but. And I wouldn't be surprised if for some entities, it ends up being the same person on both boards. I don't want to, you know, like for example, chances are for state's attorneys, there's, I mean, there's a high degree of likelihood that it's going to be the same person. Well, for us, it would probably be different for the defender generals, but I hear your point. I don't have terribly strong feelings, though, to be honest. I also feel this is where the board can separate into maybe subcommittees. I mean, I think sometimes some of these things can happen in different ways, so. And I have to say I'm a little reluctant to dictate that. I'd rather, there's a certain organic quality to when a group gets together where they, if it works well, I guess, figure out how to do that. And I would not want to prescribe that particularly, but that's my feeling. So somebody have fun, you're gonna do the diagram over then? Yes, Suzana, I will work our magic. But I just want to make sure I hear from Elizabeth and others, does everyone else agree on that, dropping the separate boards? You're working that we can put a ton and others have talked about just now? Yeah. Is it okay? Yeah, I'm in agreement. I think that works fine with me. Sheila. Okay. I'm neutral, I guess. All right. I'm really sorry, guys, about that. I just feel terrible about that diagram, having to redo that. It just seems so much work, but thank you. I would just pry. All right, Rebecca, you, I think this is the last comment. Nope, there are a couple others. Oh no, I love Sheila, she goes, I love saying real people. I'd love that, I'd love that comment. It's like, we actually did it. I'm really pleased by that. But right before that. Does that insinuate that data people aren't real? I don't know, well, I don't know what you people are. You read the rest of my comment though, Aiton. Oh God, no, what did I do? Oh no. All right, yeah, okay. Well, I guess we need to work on that. Hold on, let's back. Rebecca, let's start with you. Oh yeah, all right, let me, yeah, remember when we had recommended, or the Defender Generals at least, had recommended Secretary of State's office at one point as an entity and I had reached out to them. And I finally, after we got the meeting from Representative Lalonde and Christie about where this was heading, and so that it was over off the table, the Secretary of State's office, they called me back and said, no, we know when we talked about your proposal. Internally, the Deputy, the Secretary of State, and the State Archivist, Tanya Marshall. So they followed up with me to express, but I told, I gave them the latest update, but it was Tanya Marshall who I hadn't had a chance to talk with and I don't know if others have had experience with working with her. She's a course, and wait, what's her title? I have a here, here, the State Archivist and Chief Records Officer. In fact, one of the reasons why we recommended the Secretary of State's office in the first place was not just because they were large and independent with the elected head of that were office, but because they had in-house expertise on data governance and how that intersects with privacy protections and transparency and law specifically. What was interesting was to talk to her about what we were doing, because that's what I was sharing. And specifically this idea, because it's come up in a lot of our discussions with the role of ADS. And I know last week and the week before that, we've been talking about whether or not this meant that the permanent staff inevitably was going to default to a spot for ADS. And I know you've heard me sort of go back and forth with Karen, and I've had a lot of questions about this exploring and Karen has provided some helpful emails to provide sort of parallel efforts on the NCJRP front with work that's being done there to do data aggravation. So here's what I, this is why it was context to buy way to explain my two points here. The way I understand the role of ADS confirmed by my conversation with Tanya Marshall is that as relevant for data sharing agreements and who can sign data sharing agreements, this concept of data ownership, it is not that ADS owns the data from the entities that we would be trying to get the data from. In fact, my understanding from talking with her was that there is some statute, some law that gives this authority to the leadership, to the commissioners themselves of these agencies and organizations. And therefore it made me realize we didn't want to inadvertently sort of strip that authority. And that she was herself working with members of the judiciary and others in had overlapping issues in terms of dealing with these concepts that we are grappling with, this sort of the shared agreements who has the authority, what kind of standardized language do we have, what differing language do we do when it's within, without state government, outside researchers, et cetera. And it made me realize, shoot, way too much to absorb for this report, but enough to realize we have some incredible in-house expertise. Can we at least just mention, at least hers or the office, she wrote the specific division within the Secretary of State's office. I know that the legislature knows about them. I've been there and I've heard them call out and ask for her to come testify whenever records and public records becomes, but I think we should reference. So that was the point there. It also, she shared enough with me to know that the number two statement about the control of data being with ADS was at best misleading. It certainly has been my understanding from my boss, the defender of generals, that is not how our understanding of at least our data is not controlled by ADS, right? So I just wanted to make sure we didn't put something in that sort of sent people in the wrong direction. That's all. Okay, Monica. Yeah, I think this goes back to a little bit to the chart that I made too, because I don't want to misrepresent what ADS is or isn't, because it is on the chart that I created, you could see I put the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections, and the Department for Children and Families in this ADS bubble, because for us, those statements are true. It's not true for everyone. And so I think the more we can take some of these strong statements and even maybe some of, that's part of the reason I wanted to take this data flow diagram out, because I'm not 100% sure it's, I know it's accurate for the Department of Corrections, but maybe it's not true for everyone else. So I'm not opposed to what Rebecca is saying, but I think that it's important that to know that it is true for some agencies and departments. So is there any reason why we can't include two and three? I mean, under the guise of more is more. But I think that all executive branches is incorrect based on what Rebecca is saying. Well, could we say any? Yeah. Some may, some executive branch data may be controlled. May be controlled. And therefore. Yeah, or we could say. Yeah, we could say. But how do we even know what ADS standards must be adhered to? I mean, I guess that's true, but there are other standards that must be adhered to. I mean, it's just, it's okay. It's just, it then becomes incomplete. What other standards have to be complied with? Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Go ahead. Evan? I was just gonna say, I don't have any problems with the alterations that Rebecca made, but I have to admit that part of that is just, I don't have a lot of knowledge about this particular area. So my contributions might not be as valuable, but it seems to me as someone who doesn't know a lot that the important thing to do in this section is to flag not only for the legislature, but for this office, which hopefully we'll read our report, that they should be in contact with not only ADS, but also the state archivist and chief records officer in order to identify what state requirements must be met in order to collect and share data. And maybe if we do that, just call it out and from a pretty high level, our bases are covered sufficiently. I don't know, food for thought. I like, I like that, Evan. Yeah. I like that too. I do. I do as well. Oh, and Karen's writing it. I think all I had to do was added into number three, if that makes sense to everybody. Oh. Very efficient. I'm a fan. And get rid of number two. I like, it seems fine to me, Rebecca. That is fine. Okay. Okay. And then, Monica has updated and changed the visual. And then there's Sheila's comment, which I completely misread. Sheila, try it one more time and I might get it. And you didn't totally misread it. That was just part of it. I love it. I said, I love saying real people. And I also, like, I love that. And I'm just wondering how other people might feel about that connotation towards who I'm speaking about. So it's like a yes and a no. It depends on who our audience is, I guess, anytime. No, that's true. And Evan did have a moment of going, well, wait a minute, are data people real people? We were like, no. So I'm sorry, I couldn't, or maybe I did offer something. I don't know if I did, but I don't think I did offer. You said grassroots on the ground, policy makers. I mean, policy makers is fine, don't we think? You know, it's funny, we've been joking about it, but real people might be entirely appropriate, as Sheila suggests, right? Because it really does encapsulate several different categories, right? Like honestly, real people who have an interest in this stuff and they have something important to say, but then also maybe people who get into the nerdy nuts and bolts of policy work, you know? And both voices are important, I think, and maybe real people encapsulates that appropriately. It's true. It captures you, Sheila, it captures witchy. And I like it, and I'm totally cool with it. I just wanna make sure that we're gonna stand behind that tomorrow. That's what I'm saying. Are we gonna stand by this boat tomorrow? Is what I wanna know. I'm standing by it. I want people to represent the real people in the document. Now I'm standing by it, I like it. Great, I'm good with it. Okay. Oh my God, now my external monitor just went blank. Give it a, oh, there, fat. All right, then we move on to recommendations. Karen incorporated Evan's comments and Monica and Evan are in section B on page 13. You guys see where we are? Yeah, you know, I think, I think my memory is that maybe Karen's comment about incorporating my comments has to do with making clear that this entity is gonna have to be a little self-directing and engage in some rulemaking on this issue so that folks understand it's public and there's a process for flushing out some of the details and the public can participate in it. Then the follow-up comments about having knowledge of rulemaking and then my comment about legal assistance just made me realize that perhaps we didn't appropriately identify that issue in the staffing section that perhaps either legal assistance might be needed and there's at least two potential sources for that. Someone in house in the form of like a general counsel or staff attorney or the attorney general's office but I obviously don't know how the attorney general's office feels about that and if they have the capacity to absorb this work. So I don't know if there is a need for a call out but if there is in the staffing section maybe we just keep it general and say some consideration needs to be given to whether this entity is going to need legal services and where those should come from. That seems reasonable. Okay. So we need that. I don't remember where it was to flag it. The staffing. I know it's blue. No, I changed it to black. Oh, okay. Now I don't know where it is. But you'll know where it is. If you could do that, Karen, that would be great. Yeah, I'll put that in there. Thank you. All right. And then Karen put in something from witchy. Rulemaking. I'm not sure what this means. Maybe it would be useful to use different words, phrase or phrasing, creating policies. I can live with that. Sure. Rulemaking is a very specific thing that I, and I think Evan really did mean rulemaking. Well, I mean, there's a couple of things that administrative agencies are entitled to do under the APA that have specific phrases, rules and then procedures. They can do both. And I mean, they can also have sort of these policies that don't have the same force and effect as a procedure or a rule. And so as you get up the scale from like a guideline, a policy, a procedure or a rule, and I think rule and procedure are the ones identified in the Administrative Procedures Act, but as you get up that ladder, the higher you go, the more force and effect it has. In other words, the more binding it is on the entity. An entity can't disregard its own rule, has a little bit more flexibility to change things on the fly when it comes to something like a policy, but also the public engagement process goes up. So there's more opportunities for the public to participate in the rulemaking process than it would be to participate if an agency is just gonna put out some policy or some guideline. So. So it's complicated. Right, it doesn't necessarily have to be rulemaking, but that's, you know, at some point, this office is going to have to decide, you know, how are we gonna lay, are we going to lay out how we engage in our work? And if we are going to lay that out, what's the best format? We can make a recommendation or we can or we cannot. I'm gonna recommend not. I really am. This feels, Evan, I appreciate the detail enormously. I just know when the legislature gets its hands on this, it's going to be so radically different. I think that there'll be an occasion to testify about it. One thing that we could do is just in order to, in furtherance of some level of transparency in this report, we could just delete that phrase, engage in rulemaking too. That way it's just our DAP recommends the office identify how it will manage its major tasks, including, and then the conversation can happen and the entity will have a little ownership of its work. Let's do that. That work for people? Yes. Thanks. Great. Thank you, Evan. And, and Evan again. Oh, boy. See where we are. Yes. That was just. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And that's just related to the, and I don't know that we need to address this in the report, but I remember the topic of conversation was what confidentiality proceedings are going to apply to the data once it gets in the hands of this entity. I think that it's important that the existing exceptions in the Public Records Act continues to apply. However, my guess is that a good chunk of the data this office collects will be sufficiently de-identified, where lots of those exceptions really just aren't going to apply as a matter of fact. But it's just something to be cognizant of. And I believe already there is some language in the enabling legislation for the office of the racial equity director that acknowledges this that says, you know, those exemptions apply. Great. All right. Thank you. Oh my god. We've done it. I didn't dare say that. And then I'll write for a conclusion. I will remember when I'm not talking what I said I'd write, but I'll write it tomorrow and put it in. Does anyone have anything they want to go back to? Don't get crazy. I don't want to go back to anything, but anticipating the end of the meeting, I really did. And in all sincerity, want to thank you a ton for leading this group for such. Yeah, for you for such a large group of people. You've done a really great job. Thank you. Thank you. That's very kind. Thank you. And I want to thank all of you. If I may, on behalf of those policymakers and other real people, I'll remember that especially. Probably have some fun with that with some of my colleagues. You guys rock. You know, this. He couldn't put this into words. You know, you put something into on paper and you hope that it gets to the finish line and it got to the finish line, the bill. And then it came to you and you guys breathed life into this. You know, and that's something to be proud of. You know, I mean, you know, as a community, as part of our state, you know, community of folks and you've done that time and time again. So I'm starting to wonder what your superpowers are, but that being said, just thank you. You know, again, you know, it just raises the bar. So thank you all for all of your hard work and great work as well. Thank you. Thank you, coach. And thanks to all of you. It really, you guys just step up. It's so wonderful. It just, you just step up and I'm not going to weep even though I'm like really moved, but it's just been has, it's been wonderful. I was complaining, I believe to Rebecca earlier that I didn't get a summer vacation and I still want a vacation, but if I didn't get my vacation, this was kind of a really interesting and engaging way not to have a vacation. So thank you for that. I guess everybody, you know, the best you can to get it in there by tomorrow evening. And we're going to go tomorrow. Just we're going to do this. We're going to look at it with the whole body. We're going to take any feedback we're going to get from people who haven't been on the working group. I mean, people have been able to look at it obviously. So it isn't like anyone's going to be blindsided unless they haven't read it. And then I would like to talk about, you know, just final little touches and then how we're going, how we do the vote. And we have done that electronically two out of three times so far. This time we don't know yet. So two out of two times we've done electronically. So that may work again. It'll give us a bit more time as well. So I guess we will discuss all this tomorrow evening. And for those of you who'd like to go up to Hartford, the meeting will be in room 312 at 171 bridge street, Hartford town hall. Julia will be there. I sadly have to continue to act like human beings are evil and awful. So I can't, I have to be alone. So I won't be there. But Julia will be able to be there. And we will put this to bed. We will put this to bed. Thank God. Thank you so much. Thank you. Isn't this going to be nice next Monday? We don't have to be here at six o'clock. I love it. All right. If that, if there is nothing else, I'll see you all tomorrow at six. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Thanks everybody. Good night. Good night.