 This is the House Corrections and Institutions Committee, and we are meeting today to bring up S24. We're looking at language changes that are being proposed, and it was voted out of Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. And it does vary quite a bit in some places, particularly in the findings. The findings is where the real difference is. And the other big difference is that when DOC submits a plan, the DOC would need to submit the plan for approval to the Executive Director of the Racial Equity before it is presented to the legislature. That is the largest changes, those two. There are a few pieces of our bill beyond our findings were taken out completely, and there was one part of the intent language on our bill was taken out, as was a small piece on the plan. But the big difference are the findings for that. So I'm going to turn this over to Becky to quickly walk us through what the Senate has done, and our work today is to see if we can find a path forward to this and possibly agree to what the Senate has done or modify some of this and send it back before it comes up on the floor in the Senate tomorrow. Does that make sense to committee members? The process. Okay. Becky. Becky Wasserman, Legislative Council. So this is a further proposal of amendment from the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The main differences here, as was mentioned, is the findings have all changed to be more of an acknowledgement of the role of the Executive Director of Racial Equity. And then in the actual plan part of the bill, this is something that the Commissioner of Corrections would submit to the Executive Director of Racial Equity for approval, and then that approved plan would be reported to the legislature. But I'll walk through each piece of this. So subsection A is the findings. The first finding is that in recognition of the moral imperative to identify and combat systemic racial disparities, the General Assembly passed Act 9 in 2018, which created the position of the Executive Director of Racial Equity with the purpose of to identify and work to eradicate systemic racism within state government, that in order to implement a program of continuing coordination and improvement of activities in state government in order to combat systemic racial disparities and measure progress toward fair and impartial governance, the Executive Director is charged in statute with the following. This is all quoted from statute. So first is overseeing a comprehensive organizational review to identify systemic racism in each of the three branches of state government and inventory systems in place that engender racial disparities. Second is managing and overseeing the statewide collection of race-based data to determine the nature and scope of racial discrimination within all systems of state government. And then finally is developing a model of fairness and diversity policy and reviewing and making recommendations regarding fairness and diversity policies held by all state government systems. The third finding is that the Executive Director of Racial Equity is also responsible in statute for working collaboratively with state agencies and departments to gather relevant existing data and records necessary to carry out the purpose of the chapter and to develop best practices for remediating systemic racial disparities throughout state government. The fourth finding says that in light of the historical racial disparities in the criminal justice system, the General Assembly finds systemic racism and bias at the Department of Correction should be prioritized for review by the Executive Director of Racial Equity. So that those are all new findings in comparison to the version as passed out of your committee. So Becky, do you want to take questions on this now as we go along? Does that work? Yeah, that works. So none of our findings were put in. And I think some of our findings are pretty important. And I don't know if we want to let go. Of our findings or modify any of these in front of us, but I think one of the most important parts of our finding is the DOC's of Department within the Agency of Human Services and that the role, important role of DOC's to implement the quality of an individual's sentence and the ability to return successfully. And that the department's roles to provide security and ensures racial and social equity to employees and to persons under the custody of the commissioner. We lost all of that. Alice, did they have a reason why that was all taken out? They were feeling that we're giving, oh, they were really feeling that the bill gives a priority for the racial equity. And I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. Folks to look at DOC above everybody else. Is that about right? Butch. Yeah. That's a pretty accurate. But they say they're going to. Prioritize it. The racial equity. It was also concerned about how do you turn the system. Around. That was also another concern. I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. And I think that's what we're doing. Yeah. Now this was created in 2018. This executive branch. The executive director of racial equity. Yes. And two years later they decided they should look into the corrections. There is only one person and it's Susanna Davis. She's the executive director. There's only one person. Who is doing all of this work. Throughout. The process. And so. The committee will have a lift for any individual. Yeah. Does the committee want to have Becky continue and then that might put the findings more in context. Okay. Why don't we do that then. Um, so. Subsection B is the intent section. Um, and there. The first two. And so it's to address systemic racism and bias to achieve racial and social equity for employees of the Department of Corrections and persons under the custody of the commissioner. And the second is to recruit, train and retain a diverse and high quality workforce in the department. I don't have access to the other version, but I believe the difference was a third one about the human services approach. And that was taken out. Our third part was an enhanced human services approach to the state correctional program that would require do see to undertake a thorough review and revision of his policies administrative directives and interim procedures and memos. How you get into the system changes of DOC, which was a concern of some members of Senate judiciary, but how you get into DOC systems to really change how they provide services. This is the crux of how you do it. And this language was eliminated. So I would like to get that language back. Because I think it's really important. So why don't you go into the plan, Becky? Top of page three subsection C. The commissioner of corrections shall submit for approval to the executive director of racial equity, a strategy and long term plan to address systemic racism and bias and promote diversity and inclusion in the Department of Corrections. So the two changes here are that the strategy and plan is being given to the executive director of racial equity for approval. And then in the actual substance of what they're addressing, it was changed from address systemic racism bias and diversity and inclusion to address systemic racism and bias and promote diversity and inclusion. Where is that piece again, Becky? I'm sorry. The promote was added in for the diversity and inclusion piece and that is online three page three. Oh, all right. That's right. And promote diversity. Yeah. Okay. I don't have it in my printed copy. Then I believe, I don't believe there are changes to the, what would be in the plan. So the scope of the plan is still addressing the department's employment practices and supervision of persons under the custody of the commissioner, both in state facilities and in the community. Sub division two is the timeline and process and that's still looking at hiring practices, training supervision, professional development and competency standards to inform the basis of performance evaluation and promotion of employees. And then looking at identifying the resources and funding needed, if any, to complete the plan, and then the identifying the list of stakeholders. So one difference there is in B, they put in the word if any. And also took out what we had, including upgraded technology consultant support and required data. They took that language out. Because we know there's going to need to be technology improvements. So that's a change. And then subsection D is the report. So the change here is that by December 15, the commissioner of corrections is submitting the draft plan to the executive director of racial equity for review and approval. And then after approval that plan would be given to this committee and the judiciary committee, but not later than January 15 next year. Well, that's a lot to swallow in a short period of time. But I think Becky walked us through it pretty succinctly. Alice. Mm hmm. Nice say something to the, that I'd like to say to the committee members. Sure. So remembering folks, as I sat in with Alice this morning at judiciary judiciary. I think the basic decision here is, is how much of this can we swallow. And if, if, if you bought into the bill, how much of these changes can we swallow. We want to make changes that will not upset the apple cart and the apple carts on one wheel right now. So, as we go back through this kind of kind of remember that we're going to have to give up something to get something. Why is there's on one wheel and I was is on to solid ground. They're, they're, they're, they're absolutely not going to prove our bill. Right. So, if they don't approve the bill or they send their version back to us the way that it is chances are the bill die. It's dead. Absolutely dead. So we have to come to some sort of a compromise somewhere along the way. Not, we want to roll over, but we want to make. We want to make compromises that they can swallow. So I also then I just want to let the committee talk as I was not doing it left the meeting this morning. Well, and we do have the commissioner on with us too, and the executive director. So I'd like to kind of open this up for them as well if they want to weigh in. I'll start with you commissioner Baker if you want to weigh in at all. Well, let me do this. I believe, and I don't know this for sure because I haven't talked to the director. But Heather Simons told me that the director may have to leave by one. I don't have any respect to her. You know, I'd like to have her to have some time to weigh in and then my time's a little more flexible. Okay, good. Thank you. So we'll shift. Susana Davis, the executive director of the racial equity welcome you've been bouncing back and forth all morning. And thank you commissioner as well. I suppose first I just want to complete the answer to an earlier question by flagging for the committee that the role of executive director racial equity was created in 2018. However, it did take more than a year to appoint the person I began working in this role the first week of August of last year. So it's been a year. And of course, the last what nine months now have been marked by most of our agencies needing to put a lot of our existing work on the back burner in order to do direct pandemic response bill. I do just want to flag that. I'm not using cobit it's any sort of excuse not to do racial equity work equity is a foundational principle of everything we do it should be. However, I do you want to stress that the last year of the states racial equity work through this role is not reflective of the pace that the work would normally go were it not for those intervening circumstances. And of course, you know, there have been discussions about the responsibilities and resources of the office as well that I think would would lend themselves to helping us get this works done a little faster. Second, I suppose just generally speaking about the language and to the question I think everyone has has acknowledged at this point that this work is already part of the mandate in act nine that created my role. And so, you know, I hope everyone is comfortable knowing that this work is going to happen regardless doc has already stated its its commitment to doing this work. And of course I'm legally mandated to do it. So, at this point I think we're, we're having a conversation largely about what are the values that we want to espouse in this bill particularly through the findings and the intent language. And of course lead that up to you it is your role to make that determination but in terms of the substantive work that's happening at the core level I do just want to make sure everyone's aware. It is going to happen either way, what this does is gives us a deadline specifically for doc. You know, as opposed to other other agencies. So, I'm just remembering testimony that was received in our committee and also what happened in the Senate. I saw this morning and hearing testimony from both yourself and also Commissioner Baker that there's full intentions that if this work is going to be carried out with doc that there is a collaboration between doc and you as well I mean you're the only person for the racial equity entity within the administration correct. So, our understanding was that from the get go both doc and you would be working together on carrying forward on this legislation that we put forward correct. Correct. So, in order for the executive director the racial equity to approve the plan that doc would submit under the language that Senate judiciary put forward. Do you see that as onerous at all, or do you see that as just the continuation of your collaboration with doc and vice versa doc's collaboration with you. I see the continuation of our collaboration. And I, I would be a little cheeky in the other part of your question and saying, even if it is onerous, it's necessary. It's not negotiable and I'm glad that you as the legislature and doc. All agree to that. So, yes, I see this as a continuation of existing collaboration with the agency, and it's work that needs to happen and we're just going to have to find a way to make it work. Questions from the committee and I don't know if we want to continue sharing the screen or not. I don't hear anything back. Any questions from for Susanna. I have a comment or a question for her. I think that this is good and the progress of the work should continue I just want to make sure that. Chair Emons was asking the basic question is this hinder you in any way because we want to make sure that it supports you and we don't want any legislation that we put into interrupt the path that's already being followed very well. So if you see this as not hindering you in any way but and perhaps if it's helping you that would be even better than that would be good to know. And I think you've said it's not hindering you. Correct. It's not a hindrance. Good. Good. Does it help. I see this as a little bit more of a net neutral perhaps. Yeah, I think it's okay. Thanks. Any other questions for Susanna. I don't see anything. Thank you on such short notice. You can stay as long as you can, because I'm just going to shift it over to commissioner Baker. Thank you. Good afternoon folks for the record, Jim Baker the interim commissioner of corrections. Appreciate the opportunity to come back into the committee to talk about this. But I want to take us back in a little bit in my testimony before, and how we got to work in collaboratively to put together the original language. And then I'll make some comments on the change of language. The chairwoman and I had a conversation about putting down in memorializing the commitment from corrections to work on the issue of equity. And we were working on this within weeks of me arriving at corrections in January. But with, you know, in my introduction conversations with you, we talked about things like hiring, and that's even more steel than my mind now around the issue of equity. And I don't, I don't want to publicly disagree with director Davis but this language is not helpful as the commissioner corrections. I'm not the first time I've been asked to come into a challenge agency to make changes and make systematic changes. What bothers me about the language is in essence, it wouldn't be the commissioner of corrections making the changes inside the agency. It would be the executive director of equity. And I'm off and I believe that director Davis knows this that I'm committed to this. So if you want to bring back, I'm going to go back to what I talked about way back. When I first got here, we need to stop making political changes inside corrections. If you want them to last, they have to be systematic systematic changes mean bringing the bottom of the organization up to the point where they recognize that what you're trying to do is a change in the structure for the betterment of the holistic department. In this case, the folks we supervise the employees. This is why I thought your language was so important in finding it made a very clear statement that the department of corrections is going to be a leader in state government on bringing fair and partial and equity into their systems. And if this language went through and it's it's what it is. We're going to just like the director said we're going to continue to work. We made a big commitment already for this. We're making a big commitment on a process around hiring. You can send some frustrated I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated because, you know, and I have to clear up something because when I was in Senate judiciary this morning. The lawyers asked me if I saw center ashes language, and I said yes, but I was looking at the Senate journal, which did not include the change in the language and findings. So I have to be clear and down the record about that because I don't, I don't want to make it sound like I was being deceitful in Senate judiciary. What I found important about your language. And you're going to find a compromise compromises about meeting Senate judiciary part way. What I found about the important piece of your language and the findings is it made a very bold statement about what corrections was committing to. That's been replaced by language, which is language that's fair, fair and accurate, but not what the original intent of our conversation was. And so, there's a certain level of frustration with me. That it changes completely. The statement that I'm making inside corrections that was going to be backed up by this language that appeared in your findings. So, I know you got to find a compromise. That language leading in is not repeating what the statute says about executive Davis status is all true. I'm not sure how helpful that's going to be to me about making the statement about what the values of the Department of Corrections are. That's my point. So representative and then I'll leave it there for right now and certainly open it up to the floor for comments. But I want to want to emphasize, no matter what happens, no matter where language ends up. We're making a systematic changes inside the agency. I just had this conversation with staff yesterday. When asked, what's going to happen when you leave. And what I said to them is this. This change is not about me. It's about all of us. When I say all of us, I mean the folks inside corrections. We are positioning ourselves and I just changed the top level of the table of organization which I've shared hope to share. Senator representative shot, and Evans do not have it yet is really symbolic of the effort that we're making to institutionalize the changes inside corrections. I feel that when when you get a clear message from the legislature that we can't trust you to do that so we're going to give you some oversight to it. I'm going to go back to what I said earlier I understand the history here, but it doesn't help me make the changes culturally inside the organization. So, again, I appreciate you taking time to let me come back and weigh in on these changes. So I have a thought. I'm going to put this out on the table because I know we don't have a lot of time. I think one of the best things to do is accept the language on the approval plan be approved. That's the key portion for Senate judiciary that the plan would be submitted for approval to the executive director. And then that would then accept the language and D which is the report. I would put out to us that I would ask to have in the intent language. We put back our number three, which is to enhance human services approach to state correctional program that would require do see to undertake a thorough review and revision of its policies administrative directors and interim procedures and memos that feeds right into what the commissioner Baker just said. I would want to see that language back. And then in the plan, see to be, I would want to put back in our language that explains a little bit more of the resources and funding that would be needed to complete the plan, and that would be language including upgraded technology consultant support and required data. That's the easy part of the committee. Does that make sense to the committee. Could you follow that through. I have a hand up. I don't know whether you're. No, I, no, I don't. I'm sorry. Why. What? I have a hand up to. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't have the participant thing. Okay. So, Kurt. Kurt. Well, I have Carl first and then Carl. I have, I've just got a real quick question for the commissioner. I just want to be sure that I'm understanding him correctly. Commissioner Baker, what I think I'm hearing you say and correct me if I'm wrong here is that our language is a bit more holistic about the overall function of corrections and the environment in which it works. And it also puts the impetus on this work to come from your office. Is that correct? That's 100% correct. And what I what I get from your objection to the Senate side is that it removes that it makes it an external force that is driving the work which I would assume can run into all sorts of problems around. The command and control organization around trust and around who's really driving the bus. Is that correct? You know that on the head, sir. I just want to be sure that. I probably could have been a little clearer. I should have used your explanation. I just want to be sure I just want to be sure I understand. So thank you for clarifying that. And I, and I think I, I, I. That does make the Senate language problematic. And so, all right, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. Thank you, sir. Kurt. I just want to make sure of one thing from my understanding of what you said commissioner also. My understanding is that your, your problem is with the findings not with the rest of it so much. Is there any problem with having the executive director being the approval of it? Not at all. Not at all. I'm fine with that. The only piece again. And I didn't say this in the beginning. Representative Taylor representative Emmons picked up on that language around the need for technology and resources is important because a lot of this work centers around data. And I'm going to talk about max out right now on being able to use the staff I have, for example, for data. So there, there is an important piece there about that, that I forgot to mention in the beginning. Absolutely no problem. In fact, we probably should have thought of this before, but we're working in collaboration with director Davis now we have been for a period of time. Okay, good. Thank you. That's why I'm doing the easy part first. I'm going to go ahead and find it. Okay, which you had your hand up. We're not you're muted. You're muted. Okay, I did. Thanks. Yeah, the easy part of the language I'm clear on and good with you on that little concern that any intent we've lost number three and I think you brought that up. Yeah, and I'm a little concerned that they've shortened up the timelines for the report. From December and January, I'd like to lengthen out those timelines in the report from December to January and from January to February. Yeah, because we have added an extra step into those reports. So I think it's crucial to have a little extra time, because I don't think deal seeking. I want to make sure deal seeking, get it together by by a date certain. And we as a committee probably wouldn't be taking a whole lot of testimony early January on this, because there are other duties in the first year of the biennium. So instead of having do see submit the draft plan by December 15, you would extend that date out. And then upon approval of that plan but not later than January 15, then be presented to the legislature you would extend that out. Yes, I would. I'd rather have the date extended and to get no offense commission and then to get a bunch of numbers that don't mean anything. So we do the end of December and then the end of January I'm afraid if you get into February, we're pretty already focused on other things come February. That accomplishes that accomplishes the same thing and takes a couple weeks. That's better, because we leave the we leave December and in January and just extended out a week and a half. And then the holidays after the 15th, but at least, and it's a draft. It's a draft that goes. That makes sense to the committee. So Becky can pick up a date at the end of December and then a date at the end of January. Now, I've got a question when you're ready. Yeah, let me just see what just done and then we'll go to you, Mary. Okay, Mary. Commissioner Baker, were you able to express this morning being that most of the committee members obviously didn't hear your testimony. Were you able to explain the way you have with us. Your concerns with the language. So did they hear what we just heard from you. It was not because what happened was, I got scheduled at the last minute yesterday for Senate judiciary. I had a commitment at 11, or excuse me 1030, and they were scheduled for 10. So I went first, I was operating off the Senate calendar from yesterday, saw the language at the end about a report going through Executive Director Davis which is fine as I said. It was after I left the testimony that Senator Ash. Amendment came up. And I had not seen it. So, I was not able to comment the way I have here. Okay, because that does concern me I would hope that they would have, you know, with such a change that they would have reached back out somehow to you to have an understanding with the head of do. Your commitment to this and I think we all understand your very strong commitment to doing this work on and going going forth and in the right manner like you said from the ground up. Is there a way Alice that somehow there can be further discussion or they because I just would think it would be very important for them to hear what Commissioner Baker had to say but I think the train at the station. Yeah, and not the, not to cut you off representative Morrissey but I think in fairness the chair chair chairman Sears, Senator Sears. He asked me the question if I saw the language change. And I think I think he meant this, this language we're talking about now. I was thinking when I read off the Senate calendar. I had not looked at their website and saw those changes. So I had in fact said, I didn't have any problem with it I was referring to the last paragraph. That would concern me that you know they've got that impression when actually it is quite a bit different but as he said the train probably is left the station but I would think we would want to do this and do it right but for me. I appreciate that Mary and that's why I said to Senate judiciary we need to bring this language back to our committee here and see if we can find a compromise to offer back to the Senate. And as I've stated the key piece that the Senate is really wants is that the there's approval from the executive director of the plan. Commissioner says yes that that piece is fine. So, I put out what I would like to see I don't know where the rest of the committee is on the easy parts that the plan is approved by the executive director, the intense section. We put back our number three, which is enhanced services, human services approach to do see. We put back in the plan. The language that goes to the tech upgraded technology consultant support and required data, and that we extend the dates out of the draft. That's submitted to the executive director to the end of December. And that upon approval that it's be submitted to us at the end of January. Okay, with all of that. Okay, now let's go to the crux of the whole issue which is the findings. Again, I'm going to push this along. Knowing, I think, and butch correct me if I'm wrong, but we were I was reading the room Senate judiciary and I think we have to leave some of the findings in. But it's how maybe it's done. Yeah, because. Yeah, I'll just say in this forum I'll just say yes we need at least findings. Some of them, and I have some thoughts. Okay, so bear bear with me. So, maybe when the findings start. We start with a few of our findings first. And the beginning of condensing one and two of our findings where, and I'm just putting this part out for discussion, the state's Department of Corrections is a department within the agency of human services. And maybe find a way to just say within Paddle 28 VSA section one knock it into developing and administrating a rehabilitative correctional program designed in part to render the treatment take that out and bring up our number two. So that it sort of states in that first finding Department of Corrections is a department within the agency of human services outlined in or whatever in 28 BSA section one or 28 BSA department plays an important role in implementing the quality of an individual's sentence and ability for a successful return to and participation in the community. And then I would keep three as it is. So we'd have a new finding one and a finding two. And then I would go in to the third finding the general assembly passed to in 2018 or passed in the 2018 acts and resolves act nine. And we pick up the language after that. And I'm not sure if we put in all of that language in terms of the remainder of number one, number two. Number three and number three. And I'm debating on number four. The Senate version to take that out. Because we've taken care of that in our findings. So that's what I would put out there. So we included their findings but we take out in their findings we take out the first sentence and recognition of the moral imperative to identifying combat systemic race racial disparities we've outlined that out within our intent language. So it would start with a fact that the general assembly passed 2018 acts and resolve number nine and explain what it is. And then I'm thinking of just deleting their number four. And then it goes into the intent. So I would put that out for discussion. Butch. Why not. I do have some time to sit with us Alice since this morning and I agree. Number four was extremely problematic for me. It makes a statement that it makes a one person's opinion statement. And I don't care for that. And we hashed that out on our committee extensively about saying things like that. And we were careful not to. And also I think putting back in especially our something on our finding number two, about talking about corrections is not a law enforcement agents does not perform. And any capacity is law enforcement agency needs to be said, because a member of the Senate committee this morning said well we've taken care of all this in s 124. Yeah. There's there's it's different between correction. So yes, thank you for bringing that up. So, folks, what do you think of the chances that they'll accept what we change their priority was that the plan be approved by the executive director, which is fine with me. I, we worked so hard on this and to just have it thrown out like bathwater just. But I like the way you have, you know, turned it around and interpret some of theirs and put out as back in. So I'm going along with it. Carl. I support what what what's just said about the language that we have and about the section in the findings about how I mean I think I really like one and two. And what it what it what they do is they is they, they, they give a holistic definition of the work the corrections does that racial equity can't help but fit into. And, and I don't know if they would, if the Senate would buy that or not but I and I think that that really reflects our, our, that really reflects our sort of deep understanding of these issues here. But I, I'd love to see it stay in there if there's a way that we can make that fly and maybe there isn't I don't, I'm not, I'm going to leave that up to chair and the vice chair decide what's what we can get and what we can't get here but I think it would be good to see both of those pieces back in there. I know that Becky has a draft. She just has been working up the draft based on our discussions here so Kurt has a question and then we'll go to the draft. Not so much a question just to comment on. I'm also in favor of what you've suggested and especially as butch pointed out getting rid of for me, can you put this up on the screen Becky, and maybe email it out to folks at the same time or maybe, I don't know how we can do this. That would be good if you could email it out please. Let's give Becky time to also email it out. Yeah, I'm going to get off this. I think I have to get off the screen share before I so that I can email it out so I'll take it off for a second. Oh, this is a legislative session that keeps giving and giving and giving. We say goodbye to each other I don't know how many times and then then you get an email from me we're meeting. I think Terry was hoping he was going to be unlike Bermuda or the Bahamas or someplace like that by now. Oh, God. I wish there was some way to combine their number one with our number one and two. Figure out if there is a way to say that we have the executive director and we have the department under human services. They're not the director is not under the agency. No, I mean, the Department of Corrections under human services, kind of combine those together somehow but it doesn't work. Right, it doesn't. I think I think the executive director racial equity has to stand on its own for the Senate. What's an important I agree with you there I think they want to make sure that that's in there. And on its own. So Becky you sent it out by email. Yeah, I just sent it out. Okay. Let's wait. Okay, I just got it. I think I'm not sure if I got all the findings because a few different things were said but. Yeah, but we can work through it. So if you're ready I can show you what I changed. I am ready I'm assuming others are ready to so why don't you start walking through. So in the finding section in subdivision one I took out that first clause and that now state starts as the general assembly passed act nine and 2018 which created the position of the executive director racial equity. What I propose is we started out with our findings. Okay. First, this is a third finding. Just do a quick change of that. This track doesn't include our findings at all that I have on the email. Yeah, I just I just, I wasn't sure if that was agreed upon or not. I just didn't hear that part so I just put in on this part the draft is on the screen. And now I just put in the first two findings is that is that what you know what I was thinking was trying that it doesn't look so long for the Senate. I was trying to combine one and two are one and two finding so that it would read something to the effect of the State Department of Corrections is the department within the agency of human services with a stated purpose and I'm going to read BSA maybe section one. And I was thinking of trying to get rid of what's online 13 through 16, not go into that, but replace that with number two, the DOC does not serve in a law enforcement capacity but does play an important role in implementing the quality. So I'm going to combine one and two and not go into the details in third lines 13 and six through 16. Just reference the statute where do see is a department within the agency of human services with the stated purpose outlined in 28 BSA, whatever. So I've just changed it to the State Department of Corrections is a department within the agency of human services with the state of purpose in 28 BSA section one of developing and administering a rehabilitative correctional program and please an important role in implementing the quality of an individual sentence and ability for a successful return to and participation. And that screen be made a little larger at all on anybody. Okay, I can do it here. Hang on. And, and then. Okay. Yeah, let's not look at number two. Okay. Let's not look at number two yet what about number one does that make sense to folks, and I can't see you all. So Becky, the new number two would be our old number three, the department's role is also just to also provide security and ensure racial and social equity to employees and to persons under the custody of the commissioners that would be our old three. Okay. So we've combined our first and second finding into number one. And we've kept our third finding into number two. And then the new third finding picks up with the Senate has said, and we've eliminated that first introductory part. This is a fact that the General Assembly passed 2018 acts and resolved number nine. And then it picks up the rest of what the Senate did. But it eliminates their number four, which their number four said, in light of the historical racial disparities and criminal justice system, the General Assembly finds systemic racism and bias. So the Department of Corrections should be prioritized by review by for review by the executive director of racial equity. I think we're saying by the bill itself, it's prioritizing it because that's what the Senate said. Senator White said doing this bill means it's prioritized, doesn't it. And that's what Commissioner Baker said that he already has been working with her so he doesn't have to be prioritized because they're already working together. Yeah, Kurt. I hate to bring up a knit but in that line seven of finding number one. Can we change implementing to determining. We're not really implementing the quality we're determining the quality. Well that was a quote from Heather Simons. Well, well, I think she used the word wrong. Well, I don't know. I mean that was the quote that we used. How do you implement the quality. How do you implement quality. Oh well, okay. Supervision. All right, I'm not going to. It's not worth arguing about. Are we giving up on a statement that DLC is not a law enforcement. Yeah. No, I don't think we did give up on that. That was an oversight. It wasn't included. Yeah, I don't think we should give up on that. Right. We got to put that in. So that's got to. Yeah, probably can put it in number two. Maybe my fit. I think it's important to re-inform that because of. So I changed number two to the department does not serve in a law enforcement capacity. And its role is to provide security and ensure racial and social equity to employees and to persons under the custody of the commissioner. I'm not sure if it fits there or not. People comfortable with two. Anybody not comfortable say no, I'm not comfortable with that. Because I can't see everybody. I'm. It's okay. It's okay. Is everyone okay with it? Okay. How about number three, four. How about number. Three, four and five. The rest of their findings and it's a statement of fact. Okay. Now we go into our intent language, Becky. And that's where we've picked up. Our number three. In. New finding. Five. Just. Okay. I thought this was an issue before, but I'm just pointing it out. I don't know if it's worth changing, but. On this line. Nine to 10, it says. Gather relevant data and records necessary to carry out the purpose of this chapter. What chapter are you talking about? So it's, it's a direct quote from statute. And I just, I don't think it's. This, this just reminds me so much of conference committees with the Capitol bill with Vince writing language as we go along. You mean Cousin. Yeah. This just reminds me of this. Yeah. It's referring to a chapter and we don't know what chapter. I mean, I can put in the actual chapter. It's three VSA. But I just, as, as written, it, it doesn't. Make sense because it's an internal reference in the chapter. Right. So it might be worth it. I would reference. I'd put in the chapter. The number. The actual reference to the chapter. So it's three VSA chapter 68. So before we leave the findings, we have commissioner Baker. And Heather Simons with us. I'm sorry. I'm just going to ask you if you're comfortable to weigh in on this or not. If it makes sense. If it helps. Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate your effort to make the changes that. Again, I'll just go back to the. You know, what has been said. It's about. I thought your language. Made a bold statement. That was helpful to us. And I think you're doing your absolute level. Beth. To get some of that back in there to see if Senate. Judiciary will. We'll compromise. I don't want to be speaking for Heather, but, you know, because we haven't had a chance to talk. But. I appreciate the effort you're making here. Heather, do you want to weigh in? I mean, my thinking is we've put our findings first. And then the, the statement of fact about. The act number nine that was passed in 2018. So Heather, do you want to weigh in at all? You don't have to. Thank you. I concur with the commissioner. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. You know, because we haven't had a chance to talk, but. I appreciate the effort you're making here. Heather, do you want to weigh in? I mean, my thinking is we've put our findings first. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that to the commissioner. If there's any. Some clarity around determining the quality of the sentence. I think when I, when I, when we talk about that, the fact is we do determine the quality of someone's. Sentence. We know that. And we want to improve upon that. So. Language. I should have used if I didn't would be that we have the opportunity to. Determine. The quality of the sentence. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't want to say that. I don't know what. And this is what Kurt was saying. An important role in determining the quality. Yes. Individual statement. I mean, I make that change. Are we missing. Are we missing the statement that we talked about as far as the. Statistics part of it. We talked about adding that back in. The data needed. The data needed. The data needed. The data needed. The data needed. Under the plan. Ten. We haven't gotten there yet. Oh, okay. Harry, we're only looking at the findings. So we've added back some, our findings condensed. Particularly number one. And then we put a statement of fact in terms of the establishment. Of the, within the executive branch, the position of executive director. We've laid out what the role is. The executive director in statue. And that is also the executive director. Is also responsible for working collaboratively with state agencies and departments to gather relevant. Existing data and records necessary to carry out the purpose of three VSA chapter 68. And to develop best practices for remediating systemic racial disparities throughout state government. And then we go into our intent statement. And what we've asked here that's highlighted is to put back. Number three. That the Senate had taken out. And then Becky, if you can scroll. To the plan. We did agree to lines 22 and 23 that the commissioner corrections would submit. For approval. To the executive director of racial equity strategy and long-term plan to address systemic racism and bias and promote diversity and inclusion in DOC. And that plan would. Go out with the scope of the plan, which was our language. And that was the plan in the timeline and process. That was our language. A was our language. And B was. They had included. Get into my right draft here. Right here. Oh, they, they had in B, they only had identifying the resources and funding needed. If any to complete the plan. So that was our language. After that had including upgraded technology, consultant support and required data. So that was your concern, Terry, right? Yes, thank you. Put that back in. And then on the report, which was concerned that the commissioner is submitting the draft plan to the executive director of racial equity for review and approval was a little too soon, the middle of December. So that was our plan. And then we submitted that to December 31st. And then once it's approved and no later than January 31st, who'd be presented to us. So. Questions. Thoughts. So are we ready to say that we, I know all of this has to go to editing, but I would, are we okay with at least getting this language to Senator Sears? Yes. It's a lot better than what we had than what they had before. Commissioner Baker and Heather. Is that all right with you? This is past muster with you folks. It's good. It's good, Madam chair. Thank you for, for all of you for your work. Appreciate it. Agreed. Thank you. Okay. Just trying to think how the best way to do this is. So butch and Becky helped me out here. I just got a text from Sarah. She didn't realize we were doing this. Let me just do a show of hands, particularly, why don't you do it when not everybody can do their blue hands? Or can everybody do their blue hands that you support this language? Just raise your blue hands. If you can do it. Just so I can. I'm raising mine now. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. That's our six right? No, star nine. Star nine star. Star six mutes. Okay. I'm new. So it's on. Amuse or unmute. Are you trying to tell me to. You're trying to tell me to shut up again. No. I'm only. I'm only kidding. I got one, two. I should raise my hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Mary, you're working on it, right? Yep. You've got me on my yes. Okay. You're a yes. I got it. So we got eight, zero, three. Okay. Everybody can look with their hands. Like Bill McGill, like Laurel Mall. Have to do. Who are we? Alice, who are we? Sarah coffee and Linda joy. And Jill. So butch and Becky, help me out here. What's the best way to do this? Just. Maybe I should get. A copy of this even before it goes to editing and email it to Dick and say, this is what we worked on and proposed. I can send you a copy now. That's probably the best route Alice and, and we all know full well, if we. If he doesn't accept it, the bill is probably dead. Okay. And give them an opportunity to give me some feedback in case we have to reconvene. Yeah. That's a, that's a great idea. And we're running out of hours because. I know. We're a two now. So on the floor at three. Yeah, but we can always get off the floor if we have to real fast. I'm not sure what's on the floor today. I don't think anybody is still, she banks a gavel. All I know it's going to be a long day tomorrow. Yeah, it's going to be a really long day tomorrow. I mean, I need to leave. So I want to thank everybody for the work. Thank you commissioner. Yeah. And if you need to leave too, that's fine. I'm just kind of logistically trying to figure out. To do this while we're still in zoom. And if you hear, if I hear anything back or probably the best thing to do is send it to him and then just keep you folks posted. I'm wondering if you can do a. If they're not substance changes that, that they won't agree with. I mean, if it's, you know, like the dates or something like along that lines, we can just have you give us a quick email or text. And say, this is what, this is what he's looking at. We okay with it or something along those lines. So I'm, it's going to be a tussle in the findings. I'm sure of that. Well, you know, yes and no, I mean, their priority was the approval. No, you're right. I'm just thinking of the author. But he's not on the committee. I know. But we've kept the findings is this, he said, yeah, the statement here is for DOC and then we're bringing it into. What's in statute for the racial, the executive director of racial equity. I think I have to go to another meeting now, but I've sent it to editing and I've sent it to you. So just keep me posted on if you need anything else. I think if they are going to make changes on the floor tomorrow, it just has to be. Yeah. I'm not sure. I'm not sure if it's going to be. I'm not sure. I'm not sure if it's going to be. I'm sent to. Secretary Bloomer by like 1030. So. Good morning. Yeah. Okay. I will keep my fingers crossed. And anything else. Becky, you're amazing. And I'll send it. Amazing. Thank you. Again, until January. Yeah. Well, I did feel a little bad putting those dates in that bill of like, you haven't filled new years to do. I know. That's why I said, I'll let Becky figure it out. So thank you, Becky. Thanks. Yeah. And Sarah, you came on board. Sorry. This was so quick. Language has got changed. It's okay. Sorry. I'm sorry. I have an issue and some with my mother. So I apologize. That's fine. So we're going to, I'll submit this to Senator Sears. Keep my fingers crossed and keep you hooked up and Sarah. Do you have that language in front of you at all by any chance? It's really, they, they were really looking at changing our whole findings. Completely. Yeah. It's, I have that. It looks like it was written by Becky at 1137 this morning. Yeah. So I forgot. Well, has Becky emailed this out to everybody? The language? I hope. No, just me, right? Oh no, she did. She was going to send it to you and butch. Okay. So I'm going to send it to. I have the, I have something that was sent at 124. That Becky sent to the committee. No. No, there's one after the more. Okay. Do you have it, Phil? No, I do not. Let me, let me, it's going to be easier if. If I email it to you and then you email it out to the committee. I know that doesn't make sense, but it's going to be. It's going to be easier. Okay. So I'm going to spend some time. And then I'm going to send it to the committee. And then I'm going to send it to the committee. And then I'm going to be phrasing my. Statement to send her Sears. I want to make sure I can capture it. Again, I want to thank everybody. I'm sorry again to send out an email to say we're meeting. And I, again, want to thank Phil. It wouldn't be able to do it without you and without our IT team and legislative council. I just don't know how we would have done it. I don't know if we can move on. I know that they're working on Woodside language in the conference committee in appropriation. And we want to make sure that BGS can continue working through the winter. To at least get to a point of documents that. Can bring them forward and I haven't heard anything from Senate institutions where they fall in on this, but. Conference committee and approach is working on it. So Kurt. Just a quick question. Do you know how we can. See the conference committee on that's appropriations, either you or Phil. You can go. You can go to house appropriations committee webpage. In life. That's where it is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. And. So. That language that we submitted to our house conferees is being discussed and. Mary is the key person that's working on that. For the conference committee. The Senate conferees are Senator Kitchell, Senator Westman and Senator Ash. And we're also working on the space study. And our conferees are representative toll, representative Hopper and representative Fagan. So, and then they're also. Woodside. They're also working on the space study. How we get back. Into Montpelier. My missing seems like I'm missing something, but I can't remember what I'm missing. I can't remember what I'm missing. I can't remember what I'm missing. I can't remember what I'm missing. Body cameras for the Capitol police. That was the other thing. Yeah. And. Gov ops is working on that one. I said, we didn't, we haven't taken any testimony worked on that. That's a really gov ops issue. So if there isn't anything else, Phil, I hope this will be our last meeting. You're so good and responding to my emails. We need to meet. Yeah. It's going to stop. We don't have anything else than we'll finish up our. YouTube and want to thank people for listening in.