 I'd like to welcome back to my house judiciary committee and we're now working on age 546 and actually relating to racial justice statistics. And I would like to turn the meeting over to representative coach Christie who has provided enormous amount of leadership on this bill to to chair the meeting. So, thank you. Thank you madam chair. So I guess. Are we going to do another read through. I see Amarons here or I was thinking that we that we could go right to the witnesses. And then, and certainly if witnesses have questions or questions come up for for counsel for amaranth can certainly direct them her way and I invite her to join in. Thank you. I am good to see you. So I guess what we'll do if we can start with Rebecca Turner and then go to judge Chris Rebecca. How are you. Good. Thank you representative Christie for the record Rebecca Turner from the office of the defender general and panel member of our DAP. So thank you for inviting me today and I guess I'll kick off with my reactions to the bill. I was able to hear some of the most of the walk through yesterday and try to include in this some of the questions raised yesterday by some of the committee members. But let's I was just going to go through this from the beginning. I think by way of introduction. The our position on this project throughout the summer and certainly as included in the report that our DAP submitted to the legislature in November of last year supported a design of this integrity with something that was fundamentally ensuring the integrity and independence of of it so that the the product the end product would not be questioned that it could be something that that you that the public that all of us could turn to and rely and trust. So with that the officers defender general has always sort of turned to where we thought the obvious placeholder for such an entity would be we've consistently recommended that it be placed in the office of Secretary of State certainly a government nobody with long experience with handling data governance and which is the repository of large amounts of data. Alternatively, we have recommended the office of the auditor again with substantial experience with with data analysis. I understand this bill is zeroing in on the on creating this entity within the agency of administration. My comments here today are focusing on how perhaps some changes can be made within this proposal. I just want to make it clear that still ideally speaking. This doesn't change our position that this be removed from the AOA that we that this be built still within a less politicized branch agency or department within the executive branch. So that said, and that's something I've expressed previously with members here but I won't belabor that and we'll move on. And looking at this from the position proposed here within the agency of administration I wanted to focus on page five of this bill. And that is me get there. Page five, and it's section 5013 data governance. And I wanted to jump here because I know you have a long lineup of witnesses who will have more expertise to dive into some of the other details of this bill. What struck me here. And really of concern was a one, a one of this data governance section establishes right up front that the data collected pursuant to this project would not be considered public records, effectively exempting the work of this new governmental committee from being subject to long standing public records laws in Vermont. And that's how I read that section a one I thought that was my sit up straight moment of making sure the committee understood the significance of that. It certainly is not a proposal that we would support at the defender general's because I think what comes there after is sort of what I read as an attempt to create essentially what our public records laws already provide a structure of governance structure of protection, privacy protection and also protection public access, when that's already set out by the, the public records act. So I would encourage this committee to, to not to not reject that. I think that we have certainly been concerned throughout the build up in the panel over the summer discussion and certainly from the office of the defender general's perspective, concerned with the privacy protections of the individuals captured in the data for sure, we're concerned with the data themselves, being transparent enough to the public and all of us to understand and trust it right so we certainly want there to be both sufficient protections that's already classified as confidential underlaw, or even if it's not confidential, that it doesn't reveal too much privacy and, and, and make these individuals individuals vulnerable in a way they weren't previously. And I do think that the public records act provides those kinds of protections already. Right. There are clearly defined terms of what a public record is, versus what is publicly available. What, what exemptions are in place so that certain public information is not actually made publicly available even if it falls within the definition of public record right. So I don't see that system as lacking in any way. In fact, what I understand, and then I'm not the expert on the public records act but my understanding is that I believe every other governmental entity within Vermont is subject to it. So, I'm not quite sure what, or why this new entity would, would warrant exception. It seems to me perhaps an inadvertent creation of a fundamentally new type of governmental entity that wasn't intended. So, just wanted to put that red flag front and center. I think that that issue then addresses sort of the remainder of the data governance language that goes on from five to six bullets stay on page five. After data collection, there is that section in a to about requiring access to this division would be able to get access to all of the state agency data establishing data sharing agreements and such. Again, I think this is a mechanism that's already set out in the public records act statutory scheme. I was before speaking with you today. I was trying to get a better handle on this area of law and I spoke with Tonya Marshall, the state archivist within which is of course within the office of the secretary of state. And I would encourage you to actually invite her to come in and you can hear directly from the expert on this issue but my understanding is that the, the, that they do this regularly in terms of establishing data sharing within different government agencies and branches. So they have the working materials, the language. There are questions I know yesterday about whether or not there would be concerns, whether this branch of government could pass a law requiring a different branch of government to share to the third branch of government and my understanding is that is something that has been regularly done and through the state archivist office and as established by statute, establishing the jurisdiction of that office in that sort of data sharing setting. Thank you, Rebecca. Yeah, it's just, sorry, I was just scrolling. Oh, there's a question. Martin. Thank you for for pointing those points out. Mr that that's actually quite helpful and we'll definitely explore that a little bit further, but I had a couple questions while you're on this page a couple things for you to perhaps weigh in on maybe you're not ready to weigh in on right now but a couple things I just want to have various witnesses weigh in on. First of all, it's the concept of having the division establishing by rule, the data elements that are to be collected and the pluses and minuses to doing it in that manner. With the rule of course it would have to go through rulemaking and there's definitely some positives are definitely some pros to doing it that way, such as ensuring participation and determining what should be part of it. You know, that that it's going through a particular process that we have some consistency, and also some stability as far as the data elements that we're after because, if, and I'm comparing that not to having a set it statutorily, but just having the division come up with the data that they need through consulting with our DAP and the advisory council, without going through the rulemaking process. The con is that it takes a little longer but that's actually in some respects could also be considered a pro because we don't want the data elements to be changing. Frequently, you know we because you know that it's it's it's a pretty big lift, presumably, for some of these agencies to be able to, you know gather that data and we don't want to keep changing the changing what's required of them. But I did want if you have any input on that if you're fine with the process that we're talking about here. So that's one question I'll hold I'll let you ponder that for a second. Before I ask the second question that I had but if you have any input on that right now but I do have I do have a general. General response well though I was just trying to find the exact language this morning I was listening in on on House general ops, where a similar question was raised was in the context of traffic stops. And Dr Stephanie single and I was testifying and making the recommendation that that additional data points be included to better fill in some of the gaps in what it is now being able to be understood and and the question then came up there sort of what you're asking here which is, which is, do we do we set it out by statute, the requirements of what exact data points are needed such that when we realize one year or two years, three years later, that we actually want one or two or five more that we have to come back and get seek amendment right here I hear you saying it would be through a rulemaking process rather than sort of leaving it to the individual bodies the Council or however to to form it and I think that my general response would be instinct would be to defer to not micro manage those details by statue or by rule, and let that go through the process as I understand this bill is setting up the process of the Council meeting. But I may have misunderstood that in the details. Yeah, I think definitely the, and I actually read Dr so Guino's testimony and she likes that we're getting away from defining the items on in legislation agreed with that definitely agree with that. The other question is rulemaking versus essentially policymaking and there's pluses and minuses to, to both of those. And I appreciate you giving us some input and that's certainly something to want to hear from other members of our DAP and any of the other witnesses that testify. The other questions related. What we need, whether you think we need to even though we're not defining the data elements, you know, specifically like we did an H 317, whether we should at least put in here the categories of documents that we want or the entities from which we can. Essentially, I think in H 317 for a number of the areas where we wanted documents, it kind of provided a broad definition then then, you know, went into details that I'm wondering if we need a little more detail if that would be helpful. I don't know the answer to that, but that's a question I'm just having various witnesses. And I'm afraid I don't have a quick answer to your question I understand it and I almost would want to hear from people who have been, you know, whether it's Dr Stephanie Stinguenos or others who have been trying to get data and to analyze to see what has been the challenges there and whether it would be easier to see it in statute or not. So I'll defer. We can always we can always come back. When you have a chance. Attorney Turner. To formulate your position, so to speak. Thank you. Thank you, coach. If I could, if I may just add one more before, before yielding the floor. Let's run to the questions. It's, it's looks like I'm on page five. Again, this is in the general section on data governance and the reference here I've been talking about the public records law and the concern about not exempting this entity from being subject to those laws. The other is is the reference to the agency of digital services. And what I read here is sort of a general approach of treating EDS as the, as the entity that would be doing the overall data management or governance and again, I, I defer to others who have expertise in this area. You know, talking with Michelle Tanya Marshall State Archivist and, and looking at some of the statutes in terms of jurisdiction and who is dealing with the data governance on these issues. I understand it's, it's not a DS but it is. Within the state records. Administration, then Secretary of State's office. So I just slide that there for section three page five as well. I think that will make more sense. When read in the context of the public records act. And the reason that I was just going to jump to the council language addressing and the creation of the council. And I appreciated and recognize this as mirroring our DAPPS report, which recommended establishing a body made up of a certain government representatives in the criminal justice systems, as well as members. And here I see that there has been specific interests, I guess, representative interests that this committee wanted to make sure was covered on the council. And I wanted to just zero in on the non governmental council members being proposed here. I appreciated the six individuals being listed here. I'm looking at page eight. And one of the things that I wanted that caught my eye was that I thought there was insufficient representation of people who are actually in the criminal and juvenile systems themselves. There are, of course, people who are experiencing facing evictions and moving to Vermont as an immigrant and refugee being subject to law enforcement misconduct. One of the things here was, I thought, a collapsing of issues of treatment, mental health substance abuse issues in five line 14. I guess that's L five. And I, I thought that that warranted further on packaging and actually more representation to not just reduce all of those really critical issues, because as someone who is in works intimately with this with this court system is heavily represented by people with substance abuse disorders, people with mental health to only include just one person to represent all of those issues. I think it's not doing that justice. Certainly, what we saw being reported with CSG racial disparities report and zeroing in on all the disparities on drug offenses, for instance, shows just how important, you know, just one area can be in terms of over representation of being subject to disparities in the system. So I just, I just put that out there as well that I'd like to see more more representation on the council with with that. And I think that's it for now. Once there are any other questions. I will. I will pass the torch. Thank you, attorney Turner representative Colburn. Yeah, it's actually not a question for attorney Turner but thank you so much for your testimony it's just, I think it's like a technical correction I think we're trying to change references to substance abuse statutory references to substance use disorder. So we may want to just flag that change and I would But if I didn't say it now, probably forget it later so I see Amron nodding her head so duly noted. Thank you. Judge Greerson. Good to see you. Good to see you as always. And thank the committee for the invitation. I will. I was saying earlier, it's like all times. It's good to be back before the, before the committee. I will correct one thing on the agenda. It listed me as the witness as chief superior judge and I don't want to take anything away from judge from the committee. So, for the record, Brian Greerson, the former chief superior judge, and I'm probably here before this committee today with two hats, neither of which I wear at the present time one as a member of our DAP and one as the former chief superior judge and so my comments will kind of relate to both both those entities. I will say that I am, I am no longer involved with our DAP I wasn't present for the last few meetings. But I will say that having certainly read the report and approve the report as issued. I believe that this, this bill in its present form is consistent with the certainly what the, the, our DAP board panel was hoping to accomplish in this sense and I'll add my, they're more personal comments that not as a member of the judiciary I have always felt that the appropriate entity for this work was within the office of racial equity. And so I think by designating, and I understand the concerns raised by by Rebecca, and she did voice those throughout the, the time when we were working on this. And I, I feel personally that this is the right, right place for for this work to be overseen. So I would encourage the committee to continue to pursue this as the appropriate entity, and I believe that from from a policy perspective where committee members will know from from past, I do not comment on policy as a as a representative of the judiciary. And so I will not venture into that area today as a member of the judiciary, primarily because this does call for the creation if you will have an executive, a new entity in the executive branch and I believe that could potentially have conflicts with the branch of the government so I don't want to go there but I will say, as a member of our debt, a longtime member of our debt. I think this bill and the efforts of our debt are reflected in this bill. And I think the policy is important. I think to me the work of the judge gathering the data is critical for both the criminal juvenile justice system. And I believe that this data, this information will better inform certainly all of the entities but from the judicial perspective certainly better inform the judges and the courts and make for better more informed decisions around these issues that that really bring us here today. So, as a member of our debt. I think this is appropriate policy, and from the judiciary perspective I think the judges will welcome this, this information when it when it is available. So I just wanted to make that clear from from both hats. I am wearing. I did confer with judge zone the new chief superior judge. And you may want to hear from him directly or from the acting trial court operations. In discussing this bill and its present form with with judge zone either he nor I saw that the adoption of this bill would have an adverse impact on the court at least in terms of its operations. So we do not see any impact in that sense. And other than as I said I think the information that will be produced by this entity will better inform the court and make for more informed decisions. But again you may want you may want to hear from him in that respect. I would just follow up. Some of Rebecca's comments when I looked at the individuals for the entities if you will, or to make up the advisory council. She touched on the issues around substance abuse disorder mental health. And at least asked the committee to consider, including a provider of those services as a member of that advisory council so you're not only hearing from individuals impacted by those issues, but the provider of services relating to those issues which I think could contribute substantially to the advisory council. Again, because I'm no longer involved in either. I did want to let the committee know that as a member of our DAP we do support this. And I think it reflects the work that we've done there it was a consensus report there are issues as Rebecca has pointed out and I'm sure other witnesses will identify areas where they may disagree. But I think this is the appropriate entity, and we do not see any adverse impact on court operations, if this bill was adopted. And with that, I do not have any other testimony but I'm available for any questions if there are any representative. Thank you, my judge Grayson it's very good to see you again. So, I'll ask the same question of whether you have any input on whether this should be through a rulemaking for defining the data or or if you have any problems with the division deciding on its own from policy and through consultation with our DAP and the advisory council to come up with the data that is needed. If you have any input on that. I was obviously listening to your questions and Rebecca's response I have not given that area a lot of thought representative on. I tend to favor personally the latter approach as opposed to the rule, but that may very well be and if you'd like I'll carry that question back to judge zoning. And he may have some independent thoughts on that that bear on that issue so I'll be glad to convey that question to him, and you may want to hear from him directly on that. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions there. Yes, we will go to Ms. Susana Davis, executive director of the office of racial equity. Thank you coach and thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you. And I will sign off at this point I'll listen in as long as I can. Good to see everyone and good to see representative Gauss-Lint is still on the committee. Thank you for your help saying hello to him. Thank you. And we will probably invite you back just for old home home. You call me back anytime you want. Be there. Hello. Thank you. Miss Davis. I should say attorney Davis. Are you muted. I'm muted. I was saying attorney Davis feels weird. I'd be fine with you, David. Wayness Diaz as always. Yes, when I started this with with respect representative I just want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone else I know that I was scheduled to go way way later this afternoon and I don't want to make some of my other colleagues wait longer to get their testimony. Well, well judging. It would be you and then Robin joy. So, being that we're in that part of the discussion. It would seem to make a little sense to, to get your thoughts, and then we'll continue into the data discussion. Okay. Yeah. I'm glad we got it. So, for the record, Susana Davis racial equity director from the state. And I am happy to be back again in this committee discussing this matter I know that we've had a lot of conversations over the last year before act 65 had been passed. And since then, the executive director racial equity was also made a member of the racial disparities panel. And so there now is this a formal membership relationship there. So my proposal on the table is letter to create a division of racial justice statistics in what would become the office of racial equity and agency administration. My thoughts are brief and they will mirror largely what they were last year, which is that this work is needed. And that the fine details of data sharing public access, et cetera, must be worked out in a way that protect public, excuse me that protect privacy and the privacy of the information who are represented in those data, but that also encourages openness and transparency of government, not just state but also local. And still just as last year also agree with the goals of the work. And the only question I think that remains and it is a big question is where to site such a division. We know that the office of racial equity is cited in the agency of administration because it is statewide work, much like tax and general services and risk management is statewide. It is a bit of an outfit for the agency of administration and it's not that it hasn't been a very welcome home for this work. It's been a wonderful team. But we just, you know, I think about the build out of the office of racial equity, and at what point does it tip to be substantively out of sync with the the remaining departments in LA. And the related issue with that is the question of the focus of the office of racial equity and the addition of this division again though sorely needed in state government also does make the work mean very criminal justice heavy. And if that is what's needed and we would certainly welcome the work. But we just want to make sure that we don't in so doing shift priorities deeper into criminal justice to the expense of other matters. I don't think I said that coherently but I hope that you understood the point of that one. And. Yeah, I mean, I, the art app has worked very, very hard in producing the recommendation and you know, the bill I think has been extremely meticulously drafted so I don't want to bore you by telling you what you already know about it so I think I'm just going to pause there and of course I welcome any questions or feedback. I was holding off to let somebody else use their hand first, of course I was going to raise my hand. So I have some couple broad or a broad question, and it goes to what you identified as the big question. And you did mention some pluses and minuses certainly to where the location is but the question is, is where I mean, you're a representative of the administration and do you I mean, is this a fine look is this an acceptable location for the administration, or is that going beyond your pay grade to make that final, final call. I think, I think it might be beyond my pay grade to make that final call. What I will say from my perch in the admin is that if this is where the work was cited, we would do it and we would do it to the best of our ability. Okay. So, so I guess a follow up question is, are there other individuals within the administration be in the agency of administration or elsewhere that we should have weigh in on this or testify so we can get this right. I'd rather not get this all the way through this long process to send it to the to the governor who is not on board. I think I think, particularly given the involvement of folks in the governor's office certainly in the justice reinvestment process which this work is definitely following right from that. And so, so either particular individual have to tell me now but but I think we definitely want to make sure as early in this process as possible to make sure that we are in the hopefully on the same page, if not at least the same chapter of the book on where we're putting this. So, and I don't know if you have any input on that right now or if that's something you can ponder and get back to us on. As representative, I think that it would be good to make sure that we've heard from a DS. I know that the chief data officer has been moved into the art of discussions when they were happening, but it may be good just to hear again from a DS, particularly around the data infrastructure and the data governance and then the certainly couldn't hurt to hear from the secretary's office we have had a change in leadership since the last time we had this conversation, and we now have sort of a little bit more steadiness in there especially on the operational front so perhaps the deputy secretary might be able to share a little bit about the operational impact that this might create. I appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. The other question was more of a general question that I asked the other folks if you have any at this point of viewpoint on rulemaking versus essentially determining the data in policy. If you have any input on that at this point. So, yeah, I was talking for the last few days yesterday's walkthrough so I know that this committee has already been briefed on the fact that the rulemaking authority would be granted to the division of racial justice statistics. And it might be a bit of an inescapable bias on my part. I think we would do a great job at the rulemaking process. However, at the end of the day, again you want to create something that is transparent that is accessible to the public understandable by the public and that can adapt and flex with the needs as they present themselves, because what we find sometimes is that we're noticing a disparity or a particular pattern, but because the relevant data may not be listed out in statute. It might be difficult to encourage or compel any agencies from being able to provide it so having the flexibility to be able to adjust the list of data as needed could be helpful. And the ability to, and you know, this was a big part of last year's discussion as well which is how narrowly are we going to focus on race and are we going to be inclusive of intersectional identities. For example, we know that members of the LGBTQIA plus population also experience disparate negative impacts and policing. So when you pair race and orientation or sexual identity. We're looking at the epidemic of trans women of color who are being assaulted and murdered at higher rates than any other members of the LGBTQIA plus population. So intersections really important. And so, as we think about what data are relevant for these purposes, being able to go through a process that allows for that level of insight foresight and flexibility I think is key. I'm not even sure that I answered your question. I think that on one hand, rulemaking provides that opportunity for all that various input, and it's much more transparent than just policy presumably. But it's also a little bit less flexible because it takes a little time obviously to go through the rulemaking process so I heard pros and cons for both of them from you, if that is if that's an accurate interpretation of what you said. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a good answer to. Thanks. Thanks a lot, Suzanne. I really appreciate it. Yeah. You know, especially with when we, when we did the original discussion of the bill before it went into the malice miscellaneous judiciary bill. I think you had mentioned the same concern about the intersectionality. And, and that's critical in today's day and age that we get that piece right. So thank you for reiterating that point. Representative Gosland. Thank you. Good afternoon, Susanna Susanna. So, we don't even know yet if the, if the current administration is on board with with expanding your office or creating a new board. And I like what we did with the cannabis board. No, representative respectfully, I wouldn't say that that's accurate and maybe I didn't frame it correctly. I think that the administration supports this work and supports creating this division and is also just struggling with the question of how to structure it and where to structure it. So, in a way that makes sense and that's scalable in the future. So, let me rephrase that. So expanding it is, is what they had in mind with this whole thing then correct. Expanding, expanding the members expand expanding people to work with you more on it. Probably directly with you. Yeah. For you, I should say within the office within the office. Great way of putting that coach. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. One of the other things representative in the enabling statute. There is data, disaggregation and work that is required of the office, and it hadn't been fully, or I should say totally addressed, and that I think enabled. Let's say a little easier decision point. You know, I would think on the part of the administration because it's already in existing statute that some of the data work needs to be done across all segments of state government. Yeah, I mean, it's just so hard to, to follow everything through what we're trying to do because everything is coming at everybody at rapid pace now. And it's like, okay, what it obviously this is very important work and what are we trying to do. How soon are we going to get it done and what's feasible. And with it with the information that we have like we already, you know, I, I think we're missing some some critical data in some areas already but I think it's attainable so I mean, and I think Suzan is doing an excellent job to by the way. Thank you. Thank you representative. Any other comments from our, our guests, or committee members, seeing no hands. Yes. We'll continue our, our discussion and testimony. Robin joy, I think is next. Hello. Can you hear Robin. Yes, we can. Hi, how are you. Happy to hear everyone for the record Robin joy director of research crime research group. We worked with we agree with this bill. We were a consultant with the subcommittee that met every Monday. We agree that you should bring in the archivist on the issue of public record law. When we've worked with them in the past they're wonderful. And there's some trip ups that we've had to be aware of when we request and get data. So it, it's, you know, they're very well versed. This is their area and we agree with the defender general that you should bring them in. We agree with director Davis that you should bring in ADS. And I'll talk a little bit about that in a moment. And one quick addition to the list of people. And, and that would be, we support the letter from the director of crime victim services that victims should have representation as director Davis just said. When you look at who are also victims of crimes and the racial and intersectional bias that happens there. And that we know that one day, you know, you could be a victim and one day you could be an offender that sometimes that distinction is made by somebody in power who is acting on implicit or explicit bias. And so I my recollection of the creation of that list is that we talked about including them. I don't think it was an oversight like an intentional we are not going to do this. I refer to people's better memories. But I do want to just flag that this is a group that's missing and is equally impacted by racism and other other biases. So those are the easy things. The other two things that I wanted to talk about today are the data and also a section that's missing. We think of the bill, but we'll start with the data and I ask Miss Amber if she could put up that the first data map and scroll down to the what a ton calls the spaghetti image. A parallel process I want to let you know that's going on here, independent of our DAP is the National Criminal Justice reform project and this has been something that's been going on in the state for five years. Everyone in the criminal justice system has been invited to participate. So it's all the usual players. And this we have secured outside funding to begin the beginning of data integration processes. We have used the funding to fund a part time six months position in the agency of digital services for a project manager. His name is Joe and he has just started with the state. This is I think his eighth week or and we're very happy and we're happy to have him. This this process when I talk about the beginning the beginning. If you look at that mess of data systems, all of those data systems have laws that govern them. They have people that cover them. They have restrictions on who can have access to the data and under what circumstances. There are all sorts of preliminary things that have to happen before you begin to take on this kind of massive data integration that is actually proposed here in this bill. And so we're using this funds and right now it's just a small group of people that are meeting it's myself and Monica Weber from the Department of Corrections. Joe from ADS and then from DPS, some of their ADS staff, just to begin to collect all the laws, all the restrictions on data, so that we can have them in a place and kind of map out what needs to be done to get this data to the office of or the division of racial justice statistics and any other stakeholders who want like you, like the Sentencing Commission data integration is huge. Part of this we are taking into account something that our depth use that we refer to as the toolkit. And this is from the University of Pennsylvania, I believe, and it focuses on centering racial equity and data integration. In that end, to do so we are constantly in communication with one of your future witnesses which are to from the NAACP and ATON from our depth, in addition to informing our own stakeholders of the process. We expect a draft charter to be done by the end of February that we'll be sharing with people. So you can see the beginnings of those processes, but there's a lot that needs to be done in order to get all of these systems to talk to each other. The way that ADS describes it, which I think is helpful, is they consider it a data lake that everyone's going to contribute data to this lake. And some of us are going to swim on the shallow end, and I always said that I'm going to claim the sunny side, and we're going to have access to certain information because this is what the permissions allow. Some people are going to have access to the whole lake because their permissions allow that. Some people are going to have actions to have the lake. So creating a system of integration where the data can live together, get cross-referenced together, and then provide meaningful insight across the criminal and juvenile justice system and victims. Like I said, we strongly encourage you to talk to ADS about this process. We disagree with the Defender General that they're not going to play a big role. They are, I think, but it's their role to talk about, not mine. We are working with them because right now they are controlling the data that we want to integrate. I should say that through this process no data will actually be integrated, no data will be harmed because we are just really at the very beginning, beginning steps. Now, the toolkit that RADAP relied on, that's the division, my dog is about to bark in about five seconds, so I apologize, that the toolkit that was referenced says that you can begin to do this work with reports that already exist. And that's true, and we can, there are, for example, the extracts that I get from the judiciary monthly that exist. DOC has most of their data up on their website, it's public, you can download it and it can be worked with. So there is work that can begin within this division, inconsistent with the toolkit. So I do want to acknowledge that that can happen, but it's going to be a long road to integration. To Representative Lalonde's question on statute versus rulemaking, I'm in favor of rulemaking. And that's because words have meaning and they don't have the same meaning to everybody. And the rulemaking process I think allows for that meaning to be kind of teased out and agreed upon. And one of the things we know about the work that we do is that having consensus going in about what the words mean, mean that the results have consensus, that we have always worked to build consensus in our classification schemes, et cetera, so that when we say that DUI is worse than DLS, for example, we have all these agreements in place that, and, you know, it's not necessarily formal agreements, but we have built the consensus that people agree that this is true. And that consensus helps lend legitimacy to the final results. So that's what I have about data. And before I move on to my next point and my last point, I want to ask if there's any questions since I can't see anyone. If, okay, Representative Norse. Yes, thank you. This is probably not your flow chart, Robin, but when it comes under police and references Spilman and Valkor and then Little Spilman, I'm very familiar with Spilman and Valkor. If possible, could you comment somewhat on Little Spilman? Sure. That's Hartford and a few other agencies near there that have invested their money into that instead of buying into the Spilman system when Spilman was the main system for the states. They have, I understand, but don't take my word for it, remained on that system and have not made the transition to Valkor. Thank you. So is the entire state looking to transition to Valkor? I'm understanding they already have. Except for the Little Spilman. That was the last thing I had heard a few weeks ago from ADS DPS. So that transition has happened, but I want to warn you, you're still going to need data out of Spilman for this, because the past matters. We're not going to have, you don't want to wait five years' worth of data, five years from now to start analyzing data. A lot of data in Spilman and at the stages transferred to Valkor. So we'll take some time for them to shift all that information. It'd be nice if we had one source to pull from, such as Valkor. It would be, you know, again ADS are the people to speak to that. What I'm understanding is that Spilman has, there's still access to the data that are in Spilman, because that was the system for since the 1990s, maybe. Years, yes. Yeah, so again ADS are the people to best speak to that. But you know, the point of that flow chart is these are the systems and it doesn't need to be updated, you know, to pull from and that's just the flow chart or that mess is DCF and DCF system is from the 1980s and they have two systems that you're going to have to pull from. Then if you add all the community service providers, so there was some discussion yesterday about non-state entities. There are people who have contracts with the state to provide services. There are, right, and all of that stuff on spreadsheets. Some people are using access databases. The judiciary's treatment courts didn't move over to Odyssey and I just got an extract from them that was created in Microsoft Office 2003. That's the database that they're using. They are about to get a new system. I also want to flag also on the laws that affect all of this. And I know you're talking about it in some aspects is the expungements. But one of the things that we have to map out is if the order from expungement happens, do we have to pluck that fish out of the lake? And then nobody gets to see that fish, which isn't what we want to happen. We want the Office of Racial Justice Statistics to have the most complete data that they have. So how do you structure those data agreements so that they don't have to expunge? And those are things that really do have to be worked out carefully. There are two examples that we're using to help us guide and to help overcome some of the you can't have that mentality that sometimes people have with data sharing. And one is Virginia where they have combined substance use disorder information and police information on all in one database. And they look at it as a lake too. Some people have access to different parts of information, but they're using substance abuse treatment records. It's the two of the most heavily regulated and privacy-orientated data sets, criminal justice information, and substance use. And they're merging those together online. And I can send you guys the link if you want to look it out. It's really beautiful. But we have all of their agreements, trust documents, all the legalese. So that's one. And then Iowa also has, has already done this process. They did it a long time ago. And they, you know, have a lot of good information on how best to do this. In order to expect this process to be very important to get states attorney, sheriff's courts want to wrestle on the same system. I don't know that necessarily. So data integration, we don't expect everyone to be on the same system. It's kind of ADS's job and other people's jobs to match across systems. And we're really quite good at that. Knowing, you know, making sure that the one advice we give people when they're looking at systems is making sure that they can get their data out of their systems. And how much is that going to cost them if they can't do it themselves? You know, added to that. Also, what is the cost to change a system? So if you think about some of the discussions that you've had over the years, and let's start by adding the gender acts into our systems. Right. One of the things we're doing in the, in the national criminal justice reform project is documenting. Well, if it's just adding an extra option, what is the process in this system to do that? Who do we have to pay? Is it going to be done something by somebody here in Vermont? Do we have to pay the vendor? Is there a process to go through to get that change approved? So documenting all of that so that when somebody asked for, can we have information on this group? We know what it takes to collect the data from a technical point of view. So all of that is stuff that needs to be worked out. Thank you. Other question. I have one more point if I'm allowed. One more question, Robin. Okay. Representative Goslin. Hi, Robin. Hi. What's the realistic time that we're looking to get this running efficient, efficiently with what is, what is needed, what's required with all the different agencies and stuff. That would be an ADF question. I can say that if we look at the tool kit that our ADF relied heavily on and look at the reports that already exist, certainly with, you know, ourselves and other folks, we can get that office up and running or at least give them the things that they need to do. So if you look at the work that Council of State Governments did, the Office of Justice Statistics, Racial Justice Statistics will have access to all that information. They can get the same report from the judiciary that Council of State Governments got. You know, I'm not speaking for the judiciary, but they can go through the process to get that exact same extract from the system. So there's a lot of work that can be done once they're up and running. If you look at the larger process of data integration, that's an ADF question. So I don't think we have anybody here from from ADS, but I thought that, and it's not their fault, but they're extremely backlog, and I thought they were dealing with a tremendous amount of outdated equipment to even get close to being caught up. Do you know if that is, in fact, true? Not, I am not privy to that information, sir. I know that we have used our funding to pay for a person in ADF to help us with project management. At the beginning of the beginning of writing down all of these, you know, things that affect the integration, we know that in the next six months, we are not integrating data. Okay, all right. Thank you for now. Representative Christie, I think we really need to get ADS in here and talk with them and find out what they're. They're on the list representative. Okay, thank you. That was a recommendation. And in the original bill, they were a key focus point when we did 317. So it's just gone full circle to bring them back in. Okay, because I also know that in my former life here when I was on this select board for 10 years here in town. I also now, you know, know about the backlog with the with the communication and all that stuff what representative Norris is talking about Spillman and all that stuff. I mean, I think that's still going through a huge overhaul in the state and then the individual towns are are trying to find funds and all that stuff for that. So I think there's a lot of work to do. And again, I'm not against this. I'm just trying to get it. So we're doing it right immediately. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks for the support to representative Colburn. Thank you. I really appreciated Susanna Davis's comments about the importance of kind of looking at some of these intersectional data questions. I'll just use the example of LG, LG BT QIA folks in the, in the, with justice system of system system, sorry, who I'm getting tired system involvement. And I'm just, I'm just wondering, Robin, if you can talk to us a little bit about some of the challenges and opportunities around. Starting to untangle some of those intersections through data, whether there's anything we could be doing at this stage of kind of drafting and finalizing the bill that could strengthen the, you know, needed resources or whatever it is to help folks be able to get at that work. Thank you. That actually brings me to my second point, which is how to get at the intersectionality. And so I would ask at this point if Amber could put up this the PowerPoint PDF that just one slide so people can get an idea. And our answer to that question is you're not going to do that in administrative data. Our answer to the question is we strongly encourage that you include funding for qualitative research. To get at smaller populations and their experiences. And this is why if you look at that slide and in, I know the council say government's met with a lot of us independently of their public meetings and so I'm hoping that a lot of people asked their math questions then about why didn't you tell us about the individual counties. Are we only looking at black folks and not anyone else. And so this is five years worth of data of people who went who were charged in our criminal courts by county and the number of people and not even individuals. So if somebody was in this in, you know, came into the county twice in the same five years they're there twice. But you'll see that especially when we get to indigenous folks, Latinx folks, Asian folks that we have a lot of counties where there's five or fewer in five years being charged with criminal complaints in our court system. And so that's one of the reasons why Council of State governments didn't do counties didn't do different races, because the data aren't there for five years and actually they use six years and they still didn't have enough data. When we add into the LGBTQIA group, I want to be very clear that what we want to be careful, again echoing I think some of the things that Director Davis has said over the years is that prepare for the governments that you don't want and do we really want our government in particular our criminal justice system, collecting data about people's trans status and their sexual identities. I think that's a, I know what my vote would be. And so there's a question to really think about. And even if we went through that process of asking people to self identify when they're arrested. Would we get enough numbers to do the kind of Council of State government analysis and I respectfully submit that we would not. So what are we going on for right now, for example in New Orleans about how trans people of color experience the New Orleans Police Department. It is a qualitative study. It is having trouble recruiting people because not only are right so if we start being involved in the criminal justice system is a rare event. So trying to recruit people who feel comfortable and this is a researcher of color who's doing the research. She's well versed in this community and it's hard. But they in New Orleans are doing this because they know that they're never going to get one that the government isn't going to collect that information and two that being able to get at that at their experiences really requires talking to people. We got a earmark from Senator Leahy's office that will allow us to do qualitative research in the southern part of the state. In Bennington Windsor and Rutland, working with the NAACP's and Curtis's group to be able to get at how people of color in the southern part of the state experience the justice system. Because a lot of times what happens is Chittenden County puts its foot on the scale and what you're seeing is Chittenden County's experience and not Brattle Bears. So that is our main kind of ask in this bill is that it include more than just statistical data. Is that it include the stories of people who are affected who are never going to show up in the data in a mathematically robust way. And so that if you if you're if we're going to create this office which we think we should we're going to create this office that all we should make sure that we're not institutionalizing any more discrimination by intentionally creating something that is not going to tell those stories. And that we think that by, you know, one of the things that we're doing in the earmark is working with scholars of color to be able to get them their first publications and, and so on because a lot of people are a lot of scholars of color are opting out of traditional schools for a variety of reasons but white supremacy is one of them. And so how can we encourage as a state more scholars of color to be able to do this work. And I think that this office is one way to do that. So I hope that answers your question. Yes, thank you so much. I am just so appreciative of your insight and your answer and as someone who, you know, and my other job is a research librarian and an academic just so much of what you said really, really resonates with me and I'm so excited to hear about this grant you just talked about and, and hope you'll continue to update us on it but just wrongly support just want to say strongly support everything you said about the need to really think about the role of qualitative research and making sure that part of the picture and adequately funded here. Okay, representative Norse. One quick question Robin so it bodes the question. With the lack of sharing of statistics presently is in our best just to actually start this particular project now, or do we wait until we have access to this data sharing. So, I'm not sure I understand the question sir. But the data sharing presently. So this office very beneficial for the state of Vermont. Oh, sure. I mean if you found the council state governments report useful and their research useful. All of that right that they they merge that data. So, that was using judiciary data and Vermont criminal history data. I recently just finished a study that takes police data and merges it with court data and criminal histories to get come up with victimization of people who are vulnerable or elderly. And what does that population look like, and where those crimes look like and what are those offenders look like. So there's lots of data integration that can go on and a lot of really exciting research that we've been doing that other people have been doing. So this report that this office can start with things that are already these reports that already exist. You don't have to necessarily reinvent the wheel, but the wheel is being reinvented outside of this process. And so making sure that that that you're part of that process, or that this office is part of the process like we're doing with the criminal justice reform project is one of those things that you want to do. You want to wait for everything to be integrated and agreed upon because that's going to take years, but there is enough, enough work that we've all done in the, you know, in the state prior to assist this new office to be able to do some really robust research sure. So, coach, can I ask a follow up question. Sure. So thank you, Robin. So, yeah, tell me. Can you tell me why you support having this office then created I mean your data researcher and you do a lot of this work already. Why, why do we need this office. Sure. You need an office that is focused specifically on race and marginalized communities. And that's what this is doing. I think that having a group that's dedicated to do that. There are other issues in the criminal justice system race touches all of them. But this is dedicated it says something from the state of Vermont. I'm not going to qualify or that I recognize our state exceptionalism, but here's a chance to institutionalize the fact that research and data on race and marginalized communities matters that it matters from the legislature that we have the consensus of a group of people who represent every aspect of the criminal justice system coming together and saying yes, do this. We absolutely support it. It's not going to impact our work. We still have lots of research to do. We look forward to working with them as partners and assisting them with our knowledge of data integration and the systems in Vermont, and helping them. Thank you. More research is always better. That's one of those more better things. Madam chair grad. Should we take a short break. And then come back to a couple of more witnesses before we, we have to go to the floor at three right. We do we do. And I want to give folks some time to transition between here in the floor so I think if we could push through with some of our witnesses because they are here. And then try to take our break before the floor. Okay, great. Yes. Can we hear from which he pressed because it follows right on what Robin joy was talking about as far as data that we were going to stay on the on the data track. You know, because I saw that he got here. So he stands to reason. Wiki, would you like to share your thoughts at this point, and then we will hear from Dr. Crocker and attorney Thompson. Yeah, no problem. So everyone, my name is which you do or now see him is. I am professionally a data warehouse engineer so what with this whole bill is centered around all of that technological infrastructure that's, that's what I do for my day job. And I'm also although not wearing this hot second vice president at the end of ACP of William County so I have a lot of experience with social justice and activism. So just, so I just wanted to first give an overview of why I think this is important sort of to that question that was asked for Robin. I'm just sort of just really talking about the power of data. And I think, for example, one way that the power of data showed me up is that, you know, I helped coordinate the BIPOC vaccine clinics here in southern Vermont. And the only reason why we were able to do that was because we were able to point at the data we were able to be like hey look at this disparity that is happening, which didn't happen until we asked for it right so all of that accountability, all of that the ability for the community and organizations to engage and hold ourselves accountable to the disparities that were happening was only possible because the data existed and because the data was able to be analyzed. And in addition to that and sort of how does that transfer over to policy making right and I am thinking about the recent criminal justice presentation that we had from the justice reinvestment I think or see jeez. I'm bad with acronyms point is it's like right we were they were able to analyze where we are with the court cases and being able to be like here are some policy recommendations, right based on this data so being able to do that type of analysis is really important to make informed decisions. Another reason why I think this is important is because of how foundational it is. When we, when we think about sort of that reciting that presentation right with it. There was a big point that the disparities in in the wasn't happening from the right the sensing thing, the disparity was coming from somewhere else. And the point is, we don't know what that somewhere else because we can't determine because there's no, like there was, there's no integration with those systems right now. Right like was it the prosecutor's office was it law enforcement well we don't know right. So we're going to. So, one of the important things is we look at these disparities and we able to like map, right the journey of what it is to be convicted of that as a big picture, it part of that is being able to look at at the process in whole and can't do that without integration. I want to trend. Oh, also, one more thing about it being foundational. It's, when you build this kind of infrastructure, you are building sort of like the foundational basement for a scalable data analytics right because when you're like, I'm going to integrate these different departments, you are building the roadblocks to be able to integrate data in general, and therefore going to be able to rely on those resources once you start integrating data with other state agencies going to be down much easier. I want to transfer a little bit over to some specific sections of the bill that sort of stood out to me. And the first one is on page two section 501 one a, I just wanted to the creation within the office of racial equity. And I, I'm inclined to agree a little bit with Rebecca about sort of like really determining where it sets and maybe sitting in a place where it's like the governance is around data governance across agencies, because while I definitely agree that right now the we're talking about racial equity and we should be definitely looking at intersection with racial identity. I think it's as we as I look in my crystal ball right and look at the future the ability to collect analyze data based on gender identity disability right mental health like so many different factions that they're we're going to be able. People are going to want to see okay well if we can see race, why can't we just see you know lgbtq plus right, so that's going to start to happen eventually and if we think about well it's the office of racial equity really going to be the place where you want that to be, they should actually be focusing on racial justice. Right so just really thinking about what's going to looking in your crystal ball and seeing where it's going to go, and wanting to make sure that it's in the place where you want it to be in the future, not just now. On page five section 5013 a one on it's about the public records act I, I also felt like it was a little unclear to me about like what was public and what isn't what's covered under the act. I'm not an expert, but I, I imagine that you know is the records that were put over were public then they would stay public and then if the those that weren't for public records, we're going to sustain not as public records. But I do think sort of to you know got represented, Goslin made a point yesterday of like well they're just going to be able to do whatever with this data. And you know I do think that there needs to be some transparency, even though there are laws around data and data use. There needs to be some transparency out towards the outside. And I would propose something called the data sheets, which basically it, you don't you don't share the data what you share is what are you collecting, where are you collecting it from, and more or less how are you collecting it so there is some transparency to the public. So in the legislature we can always look at what's seeing what it is that they're collecting and making sure that that everyone else is always aware not not just like some secret entity doing some secret stuff right. I have a few more edits here on page six 5013 C. I do think that there should be some explicit guidelines on governance around data analysis very specifically what the data should not be used for on definitely not intentionally causing harm. The data should not be used for surveillance or identifiable analysis. And it should not be used to monitor individuals it should be, there should, the data should be used to look out population based and never an individual. If we get to the minute like the data at analysts will probably be looking at the individuals because they have to in order to do this work, but anything exiting out of those privileged people should not have access to that because of the repercussions that I can have. I also think that in that governance in the data analytics there should be some explicit in this around that we should always be trying to prove that we're wrong, that our systems are wrong and how to improve them and never to reinforce. We can reinforce the correctness of our systems because if we try to say hey our systems correct our systems correct, we're going to be biased towards reinforcing the, the drawbacks of our systems. We can reinforce like the correctness of our systems by proving what's wrong about them but never the other way. So in my next edit I would suggest it's on page seven 5014 b1 L I do agree with Attorney Turner, about making sure that that substance use is separated out as a specific person just because of how much more prevalent and was in the data from the presentation we saw with the reinvest justice names. So, making sure that that's separated. I'm I also think in page eight 5014 b2, it just sort of pounds like a general state that we should have, you know, marginalized folks within within that within within the Council. I do think that there should be some explicitness about who those marginalized communities are, because I want to just make sure that, you know, that that is in legislation we're not saying like marginalized communities that I'm sort of like up to interpretation. I do think that there should be like well, folks with disabilities folks from the LGBT plus community folks you know, just kind of that language. That's my own personal opinion. And I have two other points. One point, just agreeing with Robin about qualitative data, when we talk about data analytics from the data warehousing side, from the data lakes side, we talk a lot about quantitative data and being able to run analytics and statistics on those. And that will certainly tell you what, where and what is happening with whom, but it won't necessarily tell you how or why, and that qualitative data is going to be so important being able to go that much deeper, especially in examining our biases, because we, to a certain level we have to make some assumptions when we do quantitative data analytics. So qualitative data is also like an additional check that we can place on those assumptions to make sure that we, you know, are able to grab as many perspectives as we can in our analytics. And finally, just a note on the concern for from Representative Gosland. I do think that it about, you know, how feasible when will it happen. I do think that, you know, there, it is important to understand that data warehousing is sort of like, you could do sort of like so much with it or you can do like very little with it. And I think it's going to be important. Sorry. I think this council is going to be an important part of this, because the council is going to include all the stakeholders that hold data, in addition to members of the public representing who the data is going to analyze. Right, so being able to all be at one table deciding what is priority, citing what can be done and when it can be done. That's going to be extremely important to be able for us to get what we want when we want it, and look to the future of what else could be prioritized and how do we prioritize it. I know that was a lot. Please feel free to ask questions or let me know your concerns or anything that I could help support. Just a quick comment for folks who aren't familiar with our particular witness. He's been actively involved on a number of working groups and task force. He's been working with director Davis on her task force. He's worked on the working group task force with the SEC, and a number of other activities. So, to have that level of energy, Jesus, can we bottle that. Thanks. Any questions to Mr. R to see that's very telling wiki I think you did a great job explaining your thoughts. You know, thank you. Good job. So we. Why don't we ask Professor Crocker to join us. And then attorney Thompson. I think, will you be able to rejoin us. We're going to have a short floor. What do you think Madam chair back at about 330 or something. Well, that's what I thought but now I'm hearing that may not be the case. Actually, Selena, do you want to chime in because I did not hear that director. Yeah, I just heard it. So it sounds like we originally we were going to just do bill introduction today and that would be it but it sounds like we're going to suspend rules to take up s 222, which is around some kind of emergency provisions for town meeting stuff. So, you know, it could be really quick if there's not a lot of debate, but it's it's sort of just depends how it goes. And I just, I just heard that minutes ago to myself. Yeah, thank you. I know we all we also have two other witnesses from this morning in the budget so but why don't we hear from Professor Crocker and then hopefully attorney Thompson can come back next week or when we take this up next but hopefully hopefully it'll be next week. Good afternoon. Hi, I'll be really quick so I'm for the record I'm Abby cracker I'm a research professor at the University of Vermont justice research initiative and a research partner at the National Center on restorative justice. I will keep my comments really really brief and just highlight that I support this bill and specifically from the perspective and out of an external researcher. I was really encouraged to see the language specifically in the bill about external researchers, because as an external researcher who does work with justice systems and you know in a mixed methods qualitative quantitative component access to justice data systems is extremely challenging. And what happens is when I, you know if I want to do a project with say like DCF and the courts. I have to go to each of those separate entities and negotiate a data sharing agreement. And then I have to go to the data spec somebody within their office has to talk to me, create that extract and share it with me and, and that's a very time consuming complicated process for for them and for me. And what I view as a huge benefit of this entity is that this creates a centralized location within state government to do all that work and to do it once, so that I would hope I could go to this division and say, I have this research project. It's policy relevant it's grounded in racial equity it's you know me it's these certain criteria, can you help, and can we partner on this, and then that organization can be the one to say yeah we've we've negotiated these different data sharing agreements and here we can create this plan and we can share data with you and, and so I think that's one of the huge things from an external researcher perspective and I've got other perspectives as well of why I support this. Keeping comments brief. That's a really big one is it will actually open the door to a lot of researchers who have not had access to these kinds of systems which I actually think will mean we'll be able to increase the amount of policy relevant research we can do in the sort of exponentially and what I like about the infrastructure and how it's grounded is that it will be done under the sort of careful. I in collaboration of this advisory council so it's, you know, inherently leans towards a participatory approach where it's not someone taking it doing something in isolation it's it's something that's relevant and collaborative for the state so I'm going to leave it there. That was great to hear because, believe it or not, that was kind of the intention representative alone and thanks for that validation we're heading in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you, Abby for showing up. I can say Abby instead of Professor because I know each other from South Burlington here, just a real quick question and it may, you may need to ponder this little bit. I've heard now from a couple witnesses include and also you as far as having qualitative data, and I have to figure out how to ask, or put that into a bill, I mean to have stories provided and such. I don't have an answer for that it's probably more of a question for legislative council but if you have any ideas in what you've dealt with in how one actually seeks such qualitative data from government entities. Again, you may not have an if you do great. I can say it would be a challenge within this organization because it's highly sensitive information. So I have to think about it a little bit more. I have to think about it a little bit more but you know, in my perspective the benefit is an external researcher can highlight qualitative data but the real resource we're getting here is this growing organization that can help us leverage administrative data and knowing leveraging the administrative data. There's like, we're so far from perfection, but we are taking that first step is the key. And I view it as an opportunity where not only will we learn what data sets to build but we'll learn how we're how we can collect data differently, how we can share definitions across organizations a little bit differently. So there's just a ton of room for improvement within our existing data definitions as well as systems, but I don't think we should wait for perfection to start. I think that's 20 years away like I think it's start now we have lots of great stuff, move forward, and, and use what we have for good, and I'll think more about the qualitative piece but thank you. Well, well, thank you very much. And, you know, I thinking in terms of, you know, the ability and capability of potential researchers that are doing postgraduate work and doing their masters and their doctorates in very specific areas, being able to help this Bureau grow as a result of, you know, that external researcher activity, you know, that's that's huge, you know, and it expands the capability of work in this area. So, so I'm just really excited and thank you so much for your great contributions to the process. Any other questions for Professor Crocker. Well, Abby, thank you so much. And then we probably will probably have you back, you know, we've, you know, this, this isn't a one and done discussion, we want to make sure we, we put a bill, you know, to the body that can get across the finish line and it's going to take all of us. So thank you. Madam chair.