 Would you join us, Nancy? I have copies of the newest draft with anything that needs to be said. We're on 192? Mm-hm. Mm-hm. I'm out. For the record, Betsy and Rask, legislative council, you shall all should have in front of you draft strike all 2.2 to be a strike all amendment to S192 regarding the professional regulation of law enforcement officers, specifically the transfer of the professional regulation from the Vermont Commodal's train council to the Office of Professional Regulation. What I have done in draft 2.2 is highlighted the changes from your previous draft 1.1. We review draft 1.1 that I've highlighted which show how it changed from the bill was introduced. These show all of the changes from draft 1.1, so everything here is that's highlighted would be new language to address some of the issues that have been raised by draft 1.1. I will note that there was an agreement on everything, on how draft 1.1 should be changed. And my direction was to draft the strike all amendment showing the changes that this committee agreed to and that OPR agreed to in regard to the changes that were proposed. So all I'm going to do Madam Chair if it works for you is to go to the places where there is highlighting because those are the only places that have new language for you to review. Everything else has been reviewed. So the first place where there's highlighting is at the bottom of page 5 of draft 2.2. This is in regard to what constitutes an effective internal affairs program that every law enforcement agency is supposed to have. In regard to civilian review there was a change on page 5, line 17 to say that a civilian review has to provide for officer discipline reviewed by civilians which shall be a select order or other elected or appointed body or person. draft 1.1 used May and it was my understanding that you want to say who those civilians need to be. They shall be a select order or other elected or appointed body or official. And then also you discussed during your review of this bill last week how to address who should be reviewing officer discipline imposed by the sheriff. So draft 1.1 you said that a sheriff may appoint a committee of 3-5 civilians to review the discipline imposed by the sheriff. But you had discussed that you would like to say actually that some other entity within the county has to appoint the civilians to review the discipline that's imposed by the sheriff. So this new language on page 5 would say the assistant judges of the county shall appoint a committee of at least 3-5 civilians selected from among the elected officials who reside in the county to review the discipline imposed on officers by the sheriff. Then the next change that you'll find is on page 11 and 26 BSA 53-23 regarding applications that people will use to apply for law enforcement officer license. Excuse me. On the page right before you have the section. Oh thank you. Thank you for your air. Thank you for flagging that for me. So there was a change there. That's in regard to licensure renewal. The section I'm looking at is on page 10. Thank you. Senator Ayer didn't jump out because the change here in section 53-22 licensure renewal was to remove draft 1.1 subsection B which was different than what you see on page 11. That subsection B was subdivision A2 under draft 1.1. Now A1 just becomes A. A2 becomes B. The language that was struck under draft 1.1 was what have provided the director of OPR with the ability to adopt rules necessary for the protection of the public to assure the director that an applicant whose license was lapsed or who has not worked for more than three years as an officer is professionally qualified for renewal and that the conditions opposed under that subsection B would be in addition to requirements opposed under A. The agreement was to completely strike that subsection B all together so you don't see it at all but I just wanted to flag for you that that section wasn't meant to get rid of that subsection B that came out. Does that make sense or not? It was agreed. Was that one of the things that the committee did or the interested parties agreed on? It was proposed by one of the interested parties and it's my understanding that OPR agreed to removing that because I believe part of the conversation was it's partially at least addressed by the council. Right. Okay. Thank you. The next revision is to 5323 there on page 11. This is about what applications contain and specifically the oath that an officer would need to take in completing an application. So the former draft 1.1 in the second sentence said each application shall contain a statement under oath showing the applicant's education experience and other pertinent information and has to be accompanied by the fee. There was conversation about what's other pertinent information what are we really talking about education and experience. So the agreement was to substitute certification for education experience because that's how officers are getting their education and experience annually through their annual in service training at the council and it's other pertinent information required by law. So I think you heard part of the discussion last week that for all OPR licensees and other state licensees whenever you apply or renew a license you have to complete information about yourself showing for example that you are up to date in your taxes and child support. And there's also other questions I believe that OPR asks about licensees regarding felony convictions for example that I believe that they ask all licensees you can get more specific feedback from OPR and what all licensees are required by law to address in their application. Does that make sense? Okay. Let me move down to the next section on page 11 regarding licensure generally in 2653-24 and this addresses what was referred to in the de facto officer conversation. So the discussion last week by this committee was to have language in this strike all to say that an officer's acts are valid as the third person's even after the license expires but only 30 days after the license expires right. After that 31st day officer makes an arrest. The discussion here was it may not be valid and that puts some responsibility on the officer but it also puts a responsibility on the executive officer the agency. Where do we see the May? And I have to say May because we talked about the de facto officer doctrine set forth in case law and now that you're kind of fiddling around with the idea of what is a valid action by an officer who's not really fully licensed in this case I don't know how court's going to treat this language. The court might think okay after 30 days all officer acts are completely invalid or maybe the court will say well the legislature really intend to make that shift into de facto officer doctrine I can't predict. We got the language here specifically in subsection B that would say the actions in legal authority of an officer employed by an agency or elected to an office we're talking about people who are actually working for an agency and I use or elected to an office because to apply to sheriffs or constables whose license has expired and who acts with the parent authority of a license though issued under this chapter shall be valid at law notwithstanding the failure to renew it okay so their license expired the day after the expiration they go out and make an arrest this would say they're acting with the parent authority of a license and they go out and make an arrest that arrest shall be valid however as you discussed there's a party fast 30-day window to allow them to do this so subdivision B2 would say provisions of this subsection B shall only apply during the 30-day reinstatement period described in sub C2 which we'll get to in a moment with me so far let's turn to the top of page 12 I'm glad we're doing this but earlier out in our sunshine I agree senators top page 12 starts a new subsection C requiring the director of OPR to provide written notice that an officer's license has expired and notice has to be provided to the officer the officer's executive officer if any because officer might be the executive officer and the council criminal justice training council and C2 is the operative language it's referred to in subsection B to say the effective date of a license that was that was renewed during the 30 days following license expiration relates back to the date the license expired and up to the date the license was reinstated and the license shall be deemed legally valid during that time frame that's Ms. Mottonnier referred to the legal fiction that actually it was valid the whole time even though it was expired during that 30-day expiration. I just want to make sure we're not creating a lot extra work for OPR this written notice only goes out on the day one of the 30 days right so they we've heard that they give six weeks advance notice and all that's going to be normal but then we're only into the expired phase correct so for 99% of time OPR wanted to do anything special. As long as officer is timely renew I hope they're still going to give six weeks all that if an officer allows his or her license to expire despite those warnings this provides a duty on the director of OPR I provide notice it's only one time that's required here. And can it be by email? Yeah I believe so written as long as it's in writing as long as it's okay it doesn't say what type of notice it was. It just can't be pay you. Are we good on that part? Okay on page 12 there will be a new 53-26 and this was something that the law enforcement officers asked for and that OPR was also willing to do which was to keep an officer's personal information confidential. So this language will say that a law enforcement officer's home address and their personal phone number and email address produced or acquired under this chapter because it could be a license application maybe it's through an investigation that this information OPR obtains shall be kept confidential and our exempt from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act and I did talk with our public records attorney to discuss this language and it's my understanding you do not need to amend the Public Records Act specifically to write this in as an exemption as long as this language exists it's explicit that this info would be kept confidential. So why should police officers be a law enforcement officer being different from us? I mean why are we allowed to have our phone numbers and addresses being public and they aren't? You don't have to have your when you do your bio and when you put that on your on the website you don't have to put your home address and your home phone number if you don't want to. There's nothing that says you have to. No that's correct but I don't know why should a police officer who's a member of a community not be publicly you know I mean I don't know why they deserve I mean we're all exposed just the minute you step up into public service you're exposed. Well they're fairly exposed. But no more than we are. Oh yes. The people we talk to don't have guns. And the people we talk to aren't doing drug deals on the back lot. The nature of the work is considerably different. Is this currently the case? Are they currently exempt? Well I think that if police officer Mike Smith has his name in the telephone book and in Woodstock and everybody knows that Mike Smith is the police officer it's there and people can look it up. What this says is that OPR is not going to divulge this information as a part of their records. Right this is just limited to OPR. I mean if, yeah. And this isn't a new exclusion. Do we have to check with the public record people? Oh should we check with the public record people? What do you think? What do you think? Yeah. This exists. This isn't a new, currently exemptions there is an exemption of kind of a broad exemption that deals with personal information of people and I think this would be caught under there. There is, for the elections for example can't give out telephone numbers and if you don't want your home address given out on the checklist it isn't given out on the checklist but you can do it as a post office box instead. So there are exemptions for personal information. I'm curious like nurses who are registered at OPR do exempt them similarly? I don't believe there's any specific information like this for other OPR license groups. There is an exemption 1BSA 317C which is your list of exempted information in subdivision 10 that says information lists of names are kept confidential but then it goes on to say but lists of professional licensees are not exempt so it kind of begs the question when it refers to that is it just talking about a list of names? Or does it include names and other personally identifying info? Right. This is making it very specific to their request which was that OPR keep officer personal info. Well I hope they put that I like gold but then it's silver if they're going to put all that stuff I think people will know what to give me for my birthday. So it's all on there then? The rest of the stuff? I have a license. Can people look up where I live? Currently at OPR? Madam Chair of the record competition we have at OPR we give professionals the choice as to what information is played publicly on our so for APRN for nurse practitioners who are concerned when they work in the reproductive health area they want a public-facing address that may just be their business address and not their home address so we give folks that choice right now. Thank you. So if you want to I'll read to you the current 1BSA 317C10 which is this is info information that would be exempt it says lists of names compiled or obtained by a public agency when disclosure would violate a person's right to privacy or produce public or private gain provided however that this section does not apply to lists that are made by law available to the public or lists of professional or occupational licensees so just kind of beg the question is it just their names now that are protected or excuse me they're just their names are not protected well it seems to me that if they're given the option here and they say I don't know I mean I don't want my address and my telephone number listed they have the option and in this case we're just saying it's a list of the police officers that are certified and licensed but you can't have their home address and telephone number and I do have to say that I think that the people regularly not people that we regularly fill it all well after some of the emails I got this weekend and that's for sure. I have so bad ones. They are routinely for instance pivotal witnesses of court period. Right. Who are? Police. Police. So if I'm going to play that out go to their house and make sure they don't show up to court I think there's a significant public safety. I think so too. I just want to make sure that we didn't get caught hoisted on our own guitar with it. And if somebody really really really wanted to know where officer Mike O'Neill lived and his telephone number they'd probably be able to find it someplace else they just go door to door with me. Well we're just saying it's not OPR's business to make that public. Right. And I write. Okay. So then you get out of the council chapter or excuse me the OPR chapter and you get into the council chapter and so the next change you'll see starts at the bottom of page 20 but it's the same change you already reviewed earlier in the bill because the council chapter also has a definition of what constitutes an effective internal affairs policy because council's going to have to come up with a model effective internal affairs policy for agencies to develop so the same change regarding civilian review on page 20 which that civilian review shall be by a select board or other elected or appointed body or person and the same language regarding what an effective internal affairs review would look like for sheriffs which is that the assistant judges of a county shall appoint a committee of three to five civilians elected from among the elected officials in the county to review discipline imposed on officers by the sheriff. Alrighty. So the last change you'll see, we'll start off by looking at the bottom of page 25 in section 10 regarding transitional provisions so this is discussing how to transition officers from currently being certified and regulated by the council to then being licensed and regulated by OPR so this language now says on the effective date a person certified by the council is deemed licensed by OPR so that they can go out and practice with their license like this bill requires them to do so but the new language added at the top of page 26 is just saying upon payment of the initial license fee set forth in 26 VSA 5325 and set to this act to make clear that officers when they start this new regulatory structure they will have to pay the initial $100 license fee to OPR to become licensed and the effective date of this requirement is January 1, 2019 under the effective date section so $100 for each officer by January 1, 2019 in order to become licensed. This will have to go to finance. Yes, that's why we need to get it out of there. Oh I didn't see the monthly amount. It's in here somewhere. Yeah the fee section is on page 12 it's called 5325 fees and then it just refers to 3VSA 125 fee which is a section in general PR law regarding license fees for advisor professions. $100 for nickel license, $200 for renewal. So if you approve this draft I just noticed I need a period on page 27 line 13 at the end of that Thank you and I need to delete the highlighting assuming there's no other changes so I could do all of that delete the highlighting and add that period for draft 2.3 or 2.2. I could do 2.2 just it might be easier to track and people won't be raising questions about that. Let's make it 2.2 as corrected. Unless you want changes 2.2. Well let's hear now. Colin. Mike. Mike. Gwynn. Anybody else? Wow. I wonder if we can call him. He was in Honduras. But I did tell her that we were going to make the changes to that de facto section but nothing else. He just left a message saying he got called away but he is happy with the language that we always want to make things happy. Does anybody have a motion? I just wanted to mention that I did get contacted today from the Rutland City Police Department Union expressing concerns. I don't know why it arrived today. What are their concerns? I think it talked to the House members. The cost because OPR will let that staff and the investigations of unprofessional conduct would be split between an officers employing agency, the council and OPR. So they're just making and I think I actually got another one from another union member from a different community. So I'll just note it. That's all. I might point out that the underlying I believe at this point the number was H22. The underlying had already laid out all of the disciplinary actions. OPR was not involved at that point but it did lay out the disciplinary actions. But so noted. Alright. At least they wouldn't have. Is there anybody in the place they've heard of? Okay. Does anybody want to move? I'll move that we vote out S192 draft 2.2. That's correct. Anybody? Good work. Nice running that needle. I have to say I thought last week at 6.30 we were never going to get there. You ready chair? Yes. Clarkson. Yes. Pearson. Yes. And here. Yes. Great motion carries 5-0. Who would like to report this? I notice you've done a lot. I don't need to do it but I'd be willing to do it. Oh. Because I have three of them on for tomorrow. I've noticed that. You must be studying late today. Yeah. If you want. I don't want to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Senator Pearson. Thank you Betsy. Thank you. And thank you everybody. Pearson law. 81. This is the Bryn did a draft this afternoon over the weekend and then I gave her some notes and she has done some more as of. 1 o'clock today. Is this the 27? No. 8 p.m. Yeah. 1 o'clock today. This afternoon she just finished. Do you have a copy? No. Do we have more copies? Is it posted? We could just post it. I'm posting it right now. Do you have your iPad with you? I don't. Okay. Can we get a couple more copies? Sure. So if we can, Bryn is tied up upstairs with House Judiciary. So if we, I guess we, if we can just kind of start walking through it and see what the, because there's not what we want. Gail, I emailed something yesterday. Yeah. I couldn't answer anymore. Thank you. So this is let's just look at it and see. I kind of gave her this little outline. First we have the panel set up. I just handed it to you and you said I don't have it. You said another copy is coming and it never came. I think it'd be a pain. Okay. Okay. Great. I'll look. 2.2 at 108 today. No, this isn't the one. No, that's 192. It's 281. Is that 192? Okay. I'll look up with Bryn. Let's get while we get started. I sent her kind of what I thought was an overall outline and let's see if I was right here. So first we would have, by September, we would have a panel appointed. And that was this panel made up of five people by those five appointing people. That panel immediately would begin to get the services and support of the agency of administration. Then that panel would work with the secretary of administration to design an RFP that would go out for a consultant to work on looking at systems issues that cause discriminatory actions in the system. By, across the state. Yes. I'm not going to try to be too detailed here. Okay. So that consultant would be on board. They would have that RFP done and the RFP out by November. Then by I believe we said January, that consultant should be on board. Is that right? I can't remember the exact timing. It's in here. Oh, and there's Bryn. Oh. Boy, did you save my butt? Would you come in here with us? Are you feeling better? Yes. Thank you. Good. Does anyone have a copy that I can give to the senator Clarkson? No, we're sharing. We're good. So you did finish my things in here. I did, but I just wanted to point out that I got them not so long ago and so I'm not sure I incorporated all of them yet. In fact, I don't think I did. Those are just my comments. They work for the committee, so I don't know if anybody else even agreed with them. Okay. So let's just start. You want to walk us through it? Sure. All right. Good afternoon committee for the record. Bryn here from the legislative council and I'm here to walk you through draft 2.2 of S281. I tried to highlight all the language that's new from the last draft you looked at, but I'll go ahead and point it out too. So section two is an entirely new section. This is a provision and existing statute that sets out the powers and duties of Governor's Cabinet members. And I don't think anybody ever saw draft 1.1 except for me and the administration. That was on Friday, right? Well, I think it was 2.1 because you saw it at 1.1. Okay, so this is highlighting all the changes from draft 1.1. So section two This is new section, powers and duties of the Governor's Cabinet. It adds a new subdivision there, subdivision B, which provides that the cabinet must work collaboratively with the chief and provide the chief with access to records. So this is intended to address the committee's concern that there was not direct language requiring the cabinet to work with the chief. Section three, there are a bunch of new changes here. So this section 5001 provides that the position is within the executive branch, not within the agency of the administration. So the purpose of identifying and working to eradicate this demonstration within the state government that just replaced the old language that nobody liked. Subdivision B sets out that the chief has the powers and duties enumerated within 21.02, but she'll operate independently of the Governor's Cabinet. So here is where I'd like to point out to the committee that I think that it's a little confusing, because in section one, we say that the cabinet consists of the secretaries and the chief, and then we say here in subdivision B that the chief is not part of the cabinet. The chief is independent of the cabinet. So I think we have to decide and I think some of the conversations we have is should it be part of the cabinet, and we dealt kind of with that by saying the governor couldn't get rid of the person, only the panel could, but I think that we need to have that discussion more. I've thought of it as housed within the executive branch. In other words maybe physically, or definitely physically sitting somewhere in the I think we had the AOA and use their internet and some of that stuff but not part of the cabinet. We've talked about it being cabinet level in terms of the level of authority, but I don't think we should be in the position of forcing. I don't see how the legislative branch can hoist something into the executive. That's kind of fun to think about. Is that what it means on line eight that the powers and duties are? That's the cabinet level, the powers and duties. So you've defined that they have the same powers and duties as the cabinet level. We should talk about how... The intent of that language is really to establish that that's the level they're at, but it just needs to be clear whether they are a member of the cabinet or not. As long as we have the powers and duties, I don't care if they're... And they get in cooperation. That's what I like about case one, is their forced collaboration. So you could say something like, and this is not... you'll come up with something better, but online while housed within the cabinet shall operate independently or something. There's language we can... Well, maybe we don't create it within the executive branch. I don't know how you can... you can't have it both ways, right? We have a lawyer who can figure it out. I think it's either at the level... There's an authority of a cabinet level member without being a member. We can make that clear. I just wanted to make sure I got clear. I think she can. I feel good. Can we settle on the name? No, I don't think we have yet, but we're using that name just because I couldn't think of anything better. I don't know where... It depends on what the prize is. It came as a rule. Anyway, one idea from our group was equity. Either using the word equity instead of civil rights or human rights instead of... It seemed like civil rights was... to support the 13th and 14th Amendment, but this is such a broader task than that. I couldn't come up with an ideal title. Maybe others here... I just wanted to know that it was... Let's go through the bill. We can always think of a name, but we need to get through the concepts first. Okay, so I'll move on to 502. Still on page 2 here, the new language in subdivision A provides that the panel has to consult with the Governor's Workforce Equity and Diversity Council and the Vermont Human Rights Commission and others, and that the panel has the administrative legal and technical support of the agency and the administration. Changes top of page 3, just a couple of clarifying changes that no appointees for the panel, so I'll be a legislator. There are online 7 and 8 that change some other language that nobody likes to provide that the appointees for the panel have to have experience working with the implement racial justice reform. I'm struggling with this, but he was pointing out that we should be intentional that appointees be people of color, at least some number. But how do you do that? Because there's 5 appointing entities. They are going to have to get together and figure it out. Didn't we make that change in here? You can't say the one appointed by the Chief Justice shall be a person of color and the one appointed by the Senate shall not be a person of color. That's what his point is. How do you guarantee the three of them will be? You just figured out, and if they aren't, you next one. We don't have the right to mix anybody, so I'll figure it out. Well, it's not in here. Oh, I thought we agreed to that. That's why we're talking about it. That's why we're talking about it, because it's not here. We haven't gotten that far. And I think that we might want to also say that there should be geographic representation or some geographic diversity or something, because I don't think we want them all from Winter County or all 5 appointees from Winter County. But most of state government is within, I mean, a vast large percent of state government is in Washington and Chittenden County. This has nothing to do with where they're from. No, I know. But if you're looking at systemic racism within state government, that is where a large number of people are. Well, we can talk about that. I would like to say that there should be geographic representation or geographic diversity or whatever we want to say it. Subdivision 3, I'm now halfway down the page. This adds a new language that provides that the terms of the panel members have to be staggered, and we changed it to 3 year terms. And it also provides, I highlighted this, that members shall not serve more than 3 consecutive terms, and in any capacity I did not catch if the committee wanted to go with 3 consecutive terms or 2. That's fine. Subdivision 4, I changed the chairs term from 2 to 3 years, so it lined up with the terms of the panel members. Have we addressed how we appoint people when they leave the panel? So was the legislative appointment, does the legislature appoint the refill? Yeah, so we did put it in there. If you see there on lines 10 and 11, there are appointments of successors. Oh, okay. Thank you. And then, so now bottom of the page, subsection C, this is a whole new subsection that sets out the duties of the panel. And the first is to work with agency administration on the request for proposals. You can consider the bills to provide a comprehensive organizational review to identify systemic racism in each of the 3 branches of state government. So that's the RFP language. And then 2 is to appoint the chief and 3 is to work with the chief to implement reforms based on the comprehensive organizational review. This is on the panel. So the panel works with the chief to implement the reforms, but I mean that's true, but it's more like board of directors in a sense, right? I mean the chief is a staff. So it seems funny to me to think of them working to implement as opposed to, I mean I'm happy for that to be there, but we haven't sort of said to advise, to sort of, you know what I mean? I guess I'm trying to direct. And in fact they would be directing the chief. This is really where the guts of the independence comes from, right? Yeah, where are the, I mean I think that that's the point is that they are, and we can flesh that out a little bit because I think that is. I think you need a fourth one there to say what it's ongoing work is after you, I mean yes it's to implement the results of the review, but then in an ongoing fashion it's meant to work with the chief whatever else they're going to be taking out. So it could address ongoing work. It really is an advisory work. I mean it's direct, kind of directing the It's identifying the priorities and then Well working with the consultants is going to identify the systems that exist. Oh the other thing We haven't gotten to the consultant yet. Let's flag that and then figure out what else we want to have there. But are we all agreed that we want to set them up as essentially like a board of directors to the executive director? Yeah. And we could call it a board. I called it a panel instead of a board but it could be board of, it could be board. I don't care what it is as long as we understand what it is. A board of directors is the best word to use. I don't know if there's a difference legally between boards and directors and panels. A board of directors advises, directs and helps set priorities but it doesn't micromanage. So there's this fine line between advising, directing and helping set priorities and then not micromanaging. A good board hires the right person and then lets them go and enables them and does all these things and directing helping set priorities but doesn't provide an oversight. Or just as a fourth that we need a fourth. And implement even if we need number three. I think we need a fourth. Bottom of the page, section F here provides, this is the language on removal of the chief provides that they can remove only for cause and it also directs the panel to adopt the rules based on how to define the basics and process for removal of the chief. Now that was language I might have mentioned earlier but it was back in the moment when the governor was appointing. So that was to me a protection of the independence of the person. Now that it's all squarely underneath what we're calling the panel for a minute. I don't know I'd actually suggest we take that out. I think you can put only the panel may remove the chief, the person, and the panel shall adopt rules to define the basis and process for removal. Then just take up. We're powering them to hire and fire. So they could fire them. So turning to page five, now I'm in the duties of the chief. So sub A sets out the duties of the chief and it provides that using that comprehensive organizational review conducted by the vendor as a basis, the chief shall implement a program of continuing formation and improvement of activities in state government in order to combat systemic racial disparities and measure progress toward fair and impartial governance. It's all new. Sub B, I've just added a cross reference to the cabinet duties statute. And then same language, those two agencies have to work collaboratively with the chief and provide records. Sub C, this is also all new and it provides the chief with power to subpoena, compel testimony, and require document production. And there's a whole bunch of language here that sets out the guidelines for service of a subpoena or notice to produce. And if you turn to page six, subsection D, this provides for an administrative penalty of $2,000 per day if a person is non-compliant with the subpoena or notice of production. I also like the part where they do the compel to stop doing business. Yeah, it also provides with the chief can recommend to the appropriate licensing authority that the person's license should be revoked if they are non-compliant. So help me understand this. This is different from the Human Rights Commission because they're not handling complaints so much, right? They're looking at systems and they're looking at practice. So I can see where we need them to have the power to subpoena if some agency was not basically cooperating. But who would, who do we, pay me a picture where someone might fail to appear? How does that, I mean I can see that somebody fails to appear, but how does this role work? In that sort of quasi-judicial fashion where you can set a hearing or a meeting and have them fail to appear? Well it wouldn't be a hearing because they're not the person is trying to get a system changes and I don't know how this would work. I can see how the subpoena, you need to give me those records. You need to give me this. You need to cooperate. But I don't know how that works. So it does give this person investigative authority to say administer an oath to a person and say everything you say has to be truthful and essentially take testimony from that person. And if a person fails to appear in order to give their testimony then it authorizes the chief to impose the administrative the administrative fee and the other consequences for non-compliance. So in that regard I think it's similar because it sort of imparts an investigative authority on this person and I put this together sort of in response to the committee's desire to have, give some teeth to the chief. Yeah, I know for sure. But I understand if it is too much of an investigative jurisdiction for this person since I understand also that your idea is that they really be working to implement change and perhaps it's the responsibility of the consultant to do the investigative work. Well I think that this person also needs to have the ability to do that. Maybe it's okay. I'm going to sit for a little bit and keep going. I think you would have given them teeth but and we aren't fully clear on all the ways in which this will play out and what people will have to do to get things if they're embedded and if they may have a real barrier that you have to make. Okay so I'll move on to sub E now. Halfway down the page. This is that language on performance measures and I have in my notes based on conversations with the last hearing that this language might change but it's relatively the same for now. But we did add in all three branches of government that the chief has to establish performance measures for. And then subdivision F this is the part about the department of human resources training. So just add some additional language here that in addition to conducting as regular training the department of human resources has to work with the governor's workforce to conduct training based on the recommendations of the chief. And then there's the language on page seven that nothing in the subsection should be construed to discharge the existing duty of human resources to conduct training. I'm sort of doubled down there on that. I'm trying to make it clear that this is outside the scope of its regular responsibilities. I like what we're doing here. I wonder just the organization to me the chief would be designing trainings to push down after getting data and the survey of the whole scene there would be trainings right that's a part of what we think is necessary and so I guess I wonder if I would just put the onus on the chief. I mean it's maybe it's nitpicky but here you're sort of talking about HR's already doing some and now they got to consult the chief as opposed to bottom page six okay we've gone back. Just precisely where we are. In addition to conducting regular training HR shall work with but I'm sort of wondering to me the chief would create trainings based on the measuring and the data that is coming forward and work with HR and anybody else to get them into practice. I would think that the person would be working with HR and with the agencies departments to develop the training because the person can't do it by him or herself without knowing the agency that they're dealing with so they might be different in different agencies and working with HR and the individual agencies to help develop training is what I would see. And this will be the heart and the most expensive part of this work is the real training that's going forward and that's where we're in our conversation about how costly training would be and how HR at the moment doesn't have the resources to do that. This would be really focused additional training and we need to really put our money where our mouth is in that regard and helping enable that. Anything with audits? Are we going to audit that in a year? Well in so much as they're creating data points and measuring it and reporting annually it's not an independent audit but I think as I hear it the panel is providing an annual measurement. I'm just saying if it gets going for a while audit to see it there's not going to be any difference. Wouldn't the auditor step up to the fight on that? He can choose some or you can ask them to have a robust just to make up a word that nobody ever uses. Well I mean I think we have talked about the panel measuring progress. That's right we talked about so I think that's the way it works. The performance measures language. We go back to online on page 6 then that section. I think that it needs to be clear that the person has to work with the agencies and departments to help and with the chief performance officer to help create those performance targets and measures because instead it can't be an independent, I mean it can't be something that the person does in isolation. It has to be done with the individual departments and agencies. And I believe with the chief performance officer because she might already have data that she knows is there and can have suggestions about what is collectible and what isn't. And sadly measuring success is not going to be immediate. That's going to take time. I think that was sort of the point. I mean maybe we would consider that the audit function but just to see if we're actually making progress from a company we have. I wouldn't ask for an audit here. If you ask for an audit it's just going to have lots more money attached to it. Well I think it's valuable to just read lies 14 through 18. We're looking at it. But a lot of places do reports like bio and it doesn't mean that you can tell how they're doing from reading the reports. Well, give them some. What I was envisioning was someone like our auditor who seems like a pretty smart guy when they're setting up their stuff with Susan Zeller looking at ways, data that they should keep track of that he might be useful in saying well there's a way to check on this because there's a different performance criteria and there's audits. I don't know if they're the same and I don't know that we need them so I'm not going to talk about it. Well he does performance audits. He does more than financial audits and he does performance audits and we could ask him to do a performance audit in two years or in a year. We're going to be revisiting this in the next year or two and I think there is distinction that in your vital example vital rights to report this example the panel writes the report sort of measuring different agencies in the administration so there's it's not the Secretary of Ed who writes the report. So it's a little difference I think. Yep. Anyway. So I'm on page seven now. Subdivision G lines four and five. This is the annual reporting requirement from the chief. I wanted to flag this as an area where you could think about what it is that you'd like the chief to report on. He or she will report but this is where any specific issues would go. Do we mean it to be the chief and not the panel? In conjunction with the paid person right? The panel are volunteers. Chief's going to write the report anyway. But I think the chief's going to write it but it could come from the panel. That's what I like. The Human Rights Commission sends a report but that Karen writes it. But it is a difference. To make sure that the person doesn't write the report and never even run it by her. Then you could just say the chief in conjunction with the panel. No I wouldn't say just the panel is the one that submits the report. They're going to have the chief write it but it's the panel that submits the report. Just like the task force when we set up a task force on alimony report, the task force is the one that submitted the report but it was the Ledge Council person that wrote it. But they were the ones that submitted the report. I think that's a distinction I'll tell you. It is and it isn't because it's five names that have to be attached to it and the chief. And those five names come from distinct places. So it to me speaks to a level of buying. I agree with that. To me that report would have the five names anyway. Can I just ask a follow up question about that on page six the language we were just talking about the performance measures. Would you like the performance measures to go to the chief or to go to the panel or both? These are coming from this sort of agency, right? Yes. If this person was really doing the job that I anyway think they should be doing that person would be going to the panel and saying look at these are the kinds of indicators that the agency of natural resources is talking about. Do these make sense to you? Can you see anything here that should be changed that might be different and then working with so that the chief person is the kind of liaison between the panel and the agency department and working with both of them to help develop those. I don't know how to say that here except that I would think that if the panel hires this person and the person never comes back to them. So they would get rid of the person. Right. Anyway I would if I were on that panel. Okay so let's see question four. I'm back on page seven now. Oh this is not new. This is just the authorization for the position and then the appropriation. Section six is new. This is a bunch of provisions here that came out of the conversation about the RFP and the timeline for the RFP and the hiring of the chief. So sub A says that by September 1st the civil rights advisory panel has to be appointed. Sub B says that by November 1st the Secretary of Administration in confrontation with the civil rights advisory panel shall issue the RFP to solicit bidding on a comprehensive organizational review to identify systemic racism in each of the three branches of state government. And then the next sentence provides that that report has to be given completed and given to the Secretary of the panel and the House and Senate GovOps committees on before March 1st of 2020. Sorry I just don't understand that we're hiring a chief civil rights person after we do the RFP. I guess I had thought that the chief would be helping shepherd this whole process and doing the professional follow up with the panel through the whole RFP process and then figuring out how to implement its recommendations. I think that when I talk to the that isn't the way I understood it. When I talk to the administration and when I think about this there is a there might be, we need to do an inventory of the agencies and the departments and see what the issues are. What the systems issues are that are in place that create discriminatory actions or racially motivated actions. We need to do an inventory of that and that is what I understood that the consultant would do. Is that they would do that and they don't have, they're not going to implement anything, that person isn't going to do anything. They're going to look at the systems that we have in place and say here are some real issues in the system and we need to make an inventory of those and then you hire the chief of civil rights or whatever we call that person to take that list of here are 127 different things that need to be changed in these agencies and departments and start implementing those and start working as a cabinet member to say department of agency of natural resources you have to do this. This is one of the issues that you have. I understand that process but I had assumed that we would have a chief civil rights officer shepherding that work. I mean because a consultant isn't going to be full time and they're hired they're a hard time person outside of state government I had just always assumed there would be a professional at the health review, I would call it a review rather than an inventory because it's a study of what, of systemic, of a system of systems. So it's a study and but to me the chief needs to be there to be the glue that makes it all happen and is the interface with the panel and with the state government with the cabinet. I guess stories that thought there would be a chief put in place that would be the first thing the panel would do would be to hire the chief and then they together would do the RFP and do that work together. If we had a chief why would we need to hire a consultant? We wouldn't. We would just hire somebody, well they are different skills. Right and that's why that's how we put the consultant first. That was the I thought it made sense it was the recommendation of the administration to put that first and then create the position afterwards and it made sense to me Chris. I guess I I've been struggling with the idea of the consultant as opposed to just hiring the chief you know maybe there are different skills but it also might have a lot of value to have the chief you know just starting and seeing the whole thing from day one. And not hiring a consultant? Yeah. Oh I would hire a consultant because these are different skills. I mean why is that? Oh because I think there are professional consulting groups that you hire to do specific work and a person can be a good manager and a good implementer and a visionary but they aren't necessarily skilled at going and designing a format for review. I mean this is a huge undertaking to review systemic racism and state government. That's a big project and you have to design it. You have to figure out how it's going to be all its measures and how it's going to work. I mean those are very, that's a statistical data person who gets the vision from the panel and the chief and then figures out how to go at finding it out. It's a, I think a very different skill set and HR can speak to this better than I can because you hire consultants for specific purposes but to me that's a, you know those are very different skill sets. Am I? Thank you. I guess we're, we, first of all I'd like us to call out data more plainly in the sense. But we are starting I don't even think that we know what data we need to collect. And so I mean it's not really a one person job but that's just the reality of where we live. So I don't know, I need to be convinced that this two step process makes sense that a chief, I mean maybe the panel would decide that we need a new kind of chief after a while but it just seems to me, I don't know I've never been settled about this consultant versus chief timeline. So I'm also the lines here are blurry for me. Once the panel is put together, their first job, as I understood the way it was put together, would be to do the request for proposal. Then after they've got it ready, they hire the chief. After the study is done. Correct. Then what does the panel do after that? They act in an ongoing board of directors. But it doesn't ever say that in here. Well that's what we have to add to our plan. So that was one thing. And what is their relationship with state agencies and departments? Do they have any contact with them at all or is that strictly something that the chief does? Good question. I'm just still trying to kind of figure out who's doing what and how they can all come together and get anything done because we're not professionals in this area. So I really love to, we have some professionals in this area with us and we have Carrie and we have Beth and we have Tom and Karen who have who know when they need help to identify something that they would hire a consultant. So if you could speak to why you would hire someone independent of the panel and the chief to do the work of identifying systemic racism, you know, could you speak to that and help us understand and be blur the lines for us? Can we first of all make sure that we've gone through the bill so that Brin can, doesn't have to sit there with us and we can get people to identify, I mean I got sucked down the substance you know. I just want to make sure that we understand everything that's in the bill here before we. I'm almost done. The last change is on page 8. So subdivision C provides that the Department of Human Resources has to provide an interim report. I left many without knowing what you wanted that interim report to be about, I apologize. So I have that little question mark there to get some clarity on that. Whether it was to report on trainings or I don't know what we meant in there. It was one of the things that was thrown out and I don't know if it was ever put out. Okay, I'll deal with that. And then D provides that by February 1st of 2019 the panel has to have mailed down the contract and D provides that by July of 2020 they have to hire the chief and then the effective dates we just changed the passage. But I understand you might change that as well. Any more questions for Bryn? Thank you. And this I will admit to me this is a really hard process here that's really hard. And as I see it, we have there's a balance here between having it as independent as possible, the whole process, the panel and yet having the authority to compel agencies and departments to do something. That there is that balance there and if it's too independent and has no relationship to state government then it can't compel that. If it's too tied into state government then it could end up being directed there. I don't know the balance exactly and I don't really pretend to have any answers here. I do and I will say that just realistically we are looking at probably between 125 and $150,000 in the budget and we put that in there. I don't think we can put in both a consultant and a position in the same budget. And the study itself is going to take have additional costs and expenses. We need to get a fiscal note on this. Why would the study take additional money? Because it takes money to run a study. You're paying a consultant $125,000 to do it. Well, in addition you have the panel you're paying, I know it will be at $100 a day. $50,000. I don't think we will. And just slowly embed a civilized amount of money to give a day to state government. I think that's cheap at half the price. I think that's an amazing... I'd rather ask more and get more. I guess we have to... I would love to hear from our professionals about the challenge we're feeling or the tension we're feeling between hiring a chief first and then working with and helping hire a consultant and design that. To me that's a... I think you need leadership and to hire leadership to make this all happen, the panel isn't going to do that as a volunteer panel on its own. I just want us to be really aware of the money. And I hate to say this, but we are... As we heard at noon, there are a lot of pressures on this budget. We are cutting out services for the developmentally disabled. We are cutting services for... We aren't doing that yet. But after we don't do that, it's even harder, right? Right, because then we have to find that money. So I'm trying really hard to balance all of these things. And I... I might be wrong, but I don't see any reason why we can't do that kind of a survey for $125,000 or $150,000. Well, we need a fiscal note from somebody who's done that kind of a study to find out what it really costs instead of just creating a number out of thin air. I mean, I... Well, we don't give a whole wall of professionals over there who can give you that give us a notion and maybe JFO could give us a notion of what the last big study was that was done in state government. You guys can. I mean, I don't know what it would cost to do this. Okay, can some... Who would like to testify first? Curtis, would you like to come up here and... Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Curtis Reed Jr., Executive Director of Vermont Partnership for Fairness University. And also, by way of introduction, in my former life I spent nearly 20 years as an international development professional running major projects overseas that dealt with issues of corruption, creating private sector, and the conversation you're having around consulted versus having your chief of party installed first is Sir... Great. The very first thing that your consultant team will ask you will be, who's my point person? And if you don't have a point person, then the study gets confused. So you really want to have your chief of party, your chief of executive officer in place to serve as a liaison between the consulting team and government agencies. Otherwise, the work gets diffused, the communications between that team and state government gets diffused. And we have... And that gets you off to a rocky start. And you need to have a consulting team. You need to have someone who's expert around data collection analysis development. You need to have someone who's an expert around systems approach to organization development. You need to have someone who's most likely given that a large share of information. So someone who has experience looking at systems as they relate to the delivery of social services. You need to have an economist for that part of the state government that's really looking outwardly to sort of attract. So it won't be a single individual who will complete this assessment. One individual steps up and says, well, I can do it along. You know that they're selling you a big risk. We hire a consultant. They have a team in place. If you hire McKinsey, McKinsey comes with your white person is one person. But McKinsey has the team of analysts, data people, social science people. That's what consultants, big consulting firms were capable of this huge challenge. What I heard was, what I heard consultant that it was in the context of an individual as opposed to consultant firm. You know, I think the panel wants the RFP that's done, hire the chief, then RFP serves as a sounding ward for the chief. That in terms of implementation the chief is charged with implementation. But the chief may not know state government if they bring someone into the state and so they'll need to have those kinds of eyes and ears to guide those relationships. And because the chief was there from the very beginning, because the chief would have been there from the very beginning, the advisory board will have an opportunity to see how he or she sort of functions in the kind of dynamic relationship between individuals and agencies. And that would be really valuable to have for the chief, for the advisory. Otherwise we're good to do that here. I think geographic diversity is really important. We've got folks from all over the state. It's not simply chicken county or Washington county center. And you know the bringing on three persons of color into this panel might be, I don't know how you would write that into the text given that you have five separate agencies that are mandate or that are sending people. But you can send a really strong message that the Rooney rule has to be applied and that we really want to have ethical diversity represented. You remember during the Douglas administration, at one point he had failed to point person of color on the human rights commission. And you know how that kind of blew up in his face. That you know this is a commission that's really focused on reducing racial disparities. So it would stem to reason that the majority of panelists would be from different groups. Then a piece around training. There's training done around systems change. I'll take the example of state police. And in terms of getting the data have had to train and retrain troopers on how to do data collection. What are you checking on your traffic ticket? And that is an excruciating process. Because they've always done it the way they've always done it. And now we're asking them to do it in a different way. And that different way. In some cases it's conflicted with the culture that state police, some state troopers have grown up in. So we've got systems training. Around inclusion and equity. And then there likely to be some technical training. I'm thinking of AHS, the Department of Health, thinking of motor vehicles are all sort of ripe for other types of training that are outside of systems or outside of inclusion. So, but I really like the Draft 2.2 that it's moving in. In terms of the big question of do you hire a chief first or simultaneously with the RFP that you really need to have the chief in place for it to be an effective process? Does any consulting team what's it's thought the very first question will be, who's my interface? If that interface is within state government demonstration, which will be the object of the study you lose credibility. So I would say chief then RFP. It's a fair point I've done consulting work and it's always hardest when the client is not clear what they want and you only get out what you ask for. But we do face physical challenges that mean that we don't the five of us are not going to get everything we want. Could you structure where the chief was not full time for the first year? If we're trying to get this... You're saying clearly that you need outside expertise more than one person to get launched. Correct and to have the chief as simply for the first year the point of contact as opposed to implementation, you could scale that back to 10%, 15% over the first year. The only responsibility of the first year would be to be that point person to work with the agencies and the panel or the board or whatever. To serve as liaison between the consulting team and state government agencies. I was just thinking it might be hard to find somebody to work one tenth time. People with those kind of skills aren't exactly a dime a dozen. I think nothing ventured, nothing gained. I think we find out the true cost of doing this properly and we advocate for it. It's a tough budget here but this is a top priority for the state and for this administration and for this legislature. I think that we should have gots and go for what it really is going to cost. I would love to get a sense from a consulting firm and when you said people, I think you meant a consulting firm that has a bunch of expertise embedded in it. Again a point person from that consulting firm but like a McKinsey or any one of the great consulting houses they're going to have a lot of expertise embedded in them. I'd love to get a sense from again from all of you of the last consulting firms you hired to do things just get a sense of what it costs to do something. I think maybe one of the HR and Kerry and Karen maybe can give us a notion of that but also we can find out from JFO because they hire consulting firms to do studies for them also and we can get a sense of what it would cost but I think this is a really major project of state government and I think we shouldn't, I think we should start with what we need and if it means we have to do it in phases and have to do it a little more slowly because of financial constraints fine but I don't think we should start with the constraints I think we should start with what we want and then see where it goes but if we don't ask for it we'll never get it. Chris? I'd say I'm a big fan of negotiating with ourselves and limping out of here I agree with that. It also doesn't seem impossible to me to believe that we could get nothing and that would I would much rather get 50% perfect and get something started so just to say the balance is difficult to figure out. I think that when you talked about phasing it in I think that's exactly what the thought was here that you would phase it in and I get the issue of having a contact person and having a point person but the thought was that you would start with because we have really two major expenses here we have the chief or the executive director or whatever we want to call this person and we have a consultant and the thought was to phase them in to start with one and then go for the other one. Now we could start with the executive director and have that person on board for a year and then do the consulting but I'm not sure what the without that inventory and the system and you look at the systems that would be wise. One of the things the World Bank does is that they commission the study first and then based on the outcome of the study that informs the profile for the executive director Right, I mean that's here. Yeah I was just trying to think out loud if you had the chair of the panel being the point person now you haven't spent any money yet and then we have data driven recommendations coming from a consulting firm that we hire and you still have time later on to hire the chief after you have all the data and the report is finished. You could actually own towns on their select boards pay their select boards $600 if they pay their chair $1,200. I mean you could have some kind of a small stipend for the chair that would be your 10% person but they're doing it as the chair of the board instead of because to ask some because you might not want to hire somebody at 10% and then you really want to hire them at 100% later on but now they've gone off to another job because you couldn't guarantee them. You are so smart. No, because I think Senator Clark might not agree with that. I just think to ask a volunteer to do that is a huge ask. Well, but we've just said maybe we could pay him a little. Yeah, I think that's an idea. I think that the additional thing that Curtis maybe assumed but didn't mention is that with a CEO of this or with the chief comes the vision too. I mean you hire a leader you hire a chief to have vision about something and that vision helps drive this whole process also. I know the panel will have it as well but am I wrong in thinking that? For me that's really why you hire somebody is to hire somebody who has leadership skills, management skills and who really first and foremost has vision. You need the vision but the vision is to come from the panel. Yeah, and the vision can come from the panel through the development of the consultants who figure it out which then drives what you need in the chief because you might need it. We might be barking up the entirely wrong tree about what this person should be and it might be after some initial work that the person needs to be a bulldog or needs to be a really sweet, I mean we don't know and I think that will come from, so give me an idea Curtis if you can of what it would cost to consult with a, and I'm saying person here but if it's an individual person they're going to use other people there's no one single person that's going to bid on this without backup people. Are we talking about $150,000? I'm just emailing Steve Klein to say would you be kind of give us a notion of what consultants have caused? Right, I would say 150 is a good ballpark figure based on our own experience having done this for the city of Burlington. And I can see heads shaking over here. That's nodding. I see heads moving. So $150,000 a year for that job and it is designed to be done in about a year. I think that's going to be low given the scale of this but Curtis also nodding it's a big ballpark. It could really be a lot more busy wouldn't necessarily have to be. I think you're in the right scenario. And also that would depend on how it was designed. It would be selective in terms of sampling in the way that they collect data. So there are any number of ways that would allow them to meet that budget threshold if it's set at $150,000 or $175,000 or whatever. Does it help any at all since we told the agency of administration that they have the private to provide support and that kind of I mean because I think that is in here to provide the no it isn't in here yet because that was one of the big comments that got but that would be part of the what they would provide. Just make it very clear that part of the consultants work is to identify what else you know. We're not going to be able to pay for the full-scale service so leave it at the end of the workload. Didn't you get to that if you really should get to that? I think you go for the I'd go for the custom. We don't think you're crazy, not at all. You don't ask for it, you aren't even going to get 50%. So if you ask for it, you really want. You might get 50% and then we'll figure that out. It's a little bit less, they just sometimes say no you can't have it. But my experience with economic development is if we ask for what we want, we then negotiate with more ardor and we often get what we ask for or not that much less. I haven't been disappointed and we've had this conversation in economic development all the time. And then we put together a package, we go for it and we defend it and we feel strong about it and we've actually gotten sort of in the one year of non-economic drama. We've gotten what we've asked for. So you're right, it's going to, but we also maybe step outside the constraints that we've been given. We may not operate within the constraints the governor has given us. Maybe we'll have a special project section so I just emailed Steve and to get the sense of some of the costs of the last consultant we've hired together notion, but my guess is that 150 to 250 is probably where we'll be. It's a big job. Yes, I mean first compare this with World Bank projects or USAID or, you know, you're pushing the 200,000 rank. Given that we're not talking about the entire country but we're talking about Vermont. So, you know, there's also that consideration. 8,000 employee. I mean it's just a lot of data. Thank you Curtis. Any more questions for Curtis? Just so that the part that you didn't hear actually about the because I got to print so late about the consultant would be deciding kind of what data needed to be collected and how that data was collected and I think there are some good some good language that is in the that we got from the racial justice reform coalition some of the language around data collection and stuff is in here that we can just lift up and use. So, that would be part of the role of that person. I'm Thomas Waldman. I'm the general counsel of the Department of Human Resources. I cannot speak to Senator Clarkson's question about cost. What a consultant would cost for this project. But what I would like to speak to is the idea of which comes first. I know from the department's perspective, considering the budgetary constraints it would make sense to bring the consultant on first. Because the consultant's work may well steer the direction of who the appropriate candidate for chief would be. And it would certainly and hopefully refine and define what the chief's role is. Where the effort of the chief should be. In terms of a point person I think Curtis's point is excellent that certainly a consultant would need a point person. Whether that point person is the chairperson of the panel or whether the point person is someone within the administration. I know there's been a lot of talk about independence. Independence is important but just as important as independence is the notion that there is buy-in from leadership to affect cultural change. So if the chief's role is going to be to implement cultural change it's really important that the chief be perceived as being yes independent but also having buy-in from the administration, from management, from leadership. And I know that's a big concern with the draft of the bill as it's set up now. And I know Senator White I think you were speaking to this. It's a very delicate balance to strike. The provisions for example about the subpoena power and enforcement of subpoenas, yes the chief needs teeth but the chief also needs kindness and needs buy-in from leadership and to set it up as adversarial may not be the right model. Because the administration is committed to affecting cultural change. That's really unlike any questions. I actually think that's a good point. The penalty section there might be a little off-putting. The other part of it, the teeth is the penalty section might be a little off-putting. It sounds a little less like cooperation. I like your idea of buy-in from the administration. I think that's going to be, and how better to do that than like the secretary of the administration until the chief is higher have the secretary of the administration be the point person which the panel works. With whom the panel works and the consultant works. I think that wouldn't be a bad thing either. Nothing this is actually required. The administration could do this work. They could. I didn't see it in their budget. I appreciate your interest in this. It's very important. But I don't think we should overstate it. I haven't seen the executive order that's asking for this to happen. There is an executive order or revision of the executive order that created the GWEDC. That's in process. You may see an executive. You will see an executive order. Right, right, right. I just don't see why we would hire a consultant to help us figure out our data points and have them work under the entity that we're trying to measure. I don't see that. When large organizations undertake this kind of change very often, it is management that hires the consultant to come in to study what's wrong with the organization. Generally. It's not something that's imposed from outside, it's something that comes from inside. It's organic usually. I will tell you that the suggestion for a consultant and some people were actually named to me as potential consultants or groups as potential consultants came from the administration. They were the ones that said what we should do is have the panel work to come up with what the consultant will be doing and then hire the consultant. That came from the administration. So they are, I believe, willing to do that. Whether the point person is then the secretary of administration who is the person who would be working with the advisory panel to come up with the RFP. Is that how it would be? That's how we have it in here anyway. I don't know if the secretary of administration is the point person. It's the chair of the panel in consultation. I don't know how that works, but I think we do have to make sure we get the buy in of the administration. Karen? Karen mentions from the commission. So sorry. I sent in some written testimony. I didn't realize there was a draft 2.2, so I was looking at 2.1, but I glanced through it. So I will try to tailor my remarks away from the things that I pointed out that you already fixed. I do have. So in terms of addressing the first question, which is a issue, I have a strong feeling about this in terms of having the chief, whatever they're called, and please not civil rights officer in place ahead of time, because the way that state government works, it will be very, very difficult to do this without having somebody in place who is in charge of this thing. So first of all, let's say you have your you do it the way you want to, which is to have this panel come up with your RFP. That RFP has to go through the buildings and general services bid process. The panel, somebody has to create a contract with your ultimate vendor. Somebody has to negotiate that contract. Somebody has to make sure the AGO reviews that contract and approves that contract and you've got a volunteer board that would be trying to shepherd this through. And I can tell you my experience with volunteer boards is they like to show up for meetings and they're happy to contribute on kind of a policy advisory level, but the work is done by the staff and they don't do any work beyond the commission that's deciding the cases. So I think you would have a real hard time and I don't even know a state government, Tom I know this better than I, but whether state government could even do this processing without what they call an appointing authority who would be signing off on this stuff. And it can't be like some executive staff assistant in the agency of administration that's not going to work. So it's got to be somebody at a high enough level to do that. So that would be my concern with sort of, so the way that I had sort of conceptualized it was I think there's a lot of work for this chief to do out of the gate in terms of just getting, you know, hired figuring out state government which takes some animal in and of itself right how you operate in that. Figuring out how they could work on I think some of the things from the racial justice reform coalition that we're not in here that I think should be included are development of like a model equity policy for the state. So that person could work on that for example. They could work on the training piece. They could work on helping to figure out working with DHR, working with the council to figure out what should the training look like and that may get tweaked over time once your consultant comes in and tells you what to do. But I think there's a lot of work that that person could do and also then do this RFP process and then have the RFP process perhaps pay for in the 2020 budget so that you have your person on the ground getting everything together and then if you need to, you know, spread this out I would spread it out in the opposite way. Put your person in place. Have them help figure out what you're doing here and hire the consultant and do that work and then maybe put that out into the 2020 budget. So that's sort of the way that I have conceptualized it. I think one of the things that Curtis mentioned and I think needs definite repeating is the panel itself needs to be majority people of color. I don't know how you write that but otherwise we are doing to and doing for people of color again is what we do all the time and this needs to be something that's coming from people of color to solve these problems not us. And so I think that's incredibly important and I think there's some way to do that even if it's just that where all these different people appointing have to talk to each other before they appoint people and make sure they got three people. I think it's not that hard to do. Let's see so not we have a lot of recommendations here and not being the agency of administration. Yes, so I think that I understand Tom's point in terms of having buy-in but I also think that whoever you put into this job you're going to want somebody who has the ability to get that buy-in. That's one of the key things that you're going to be looking for in the person that you hire here is somebody who can work with other agencies somebody who can get buy-in and so I think you can solve that without having it sit in the agency of administration and I think even if it's independent and the panel is hiring it and hiring this person and firing this person if you're sitting in that office you're going to be subject to some amount of political pressure no matter what and while I respect that this administration is committed to this work we don't know who might be next and we don't know whether that commitment continues and so that's what concerns me and why and being independent myself and not subject to that kind of political pressure makes it I can do my job without fear of reprisal and I think that's a really important aspect of this. So would you we actually don't have it in the agency of administration we have it within the executive branch you wouldn't even do that? No I think it would be in the executive branch I just think Yeah we just have it within the executive branch it isn't in the agency. You're recommending that you be hiring the auditors? I was recommending that you consider the auditors office because they are data crunchers for starters they look at systems so. They are but they're they also try to get a little appropriations to do to get one more room I remember a few years ago and blew up. I mean if you ever go over there and they're like desks in the hallway It's a great idea I think that's a kind of wonderful idea that they would have the cloud in the administration to make the departments they have the cloud to get what they want I mean they get you give whoever is in this position you have to give them the cloud through their powers that are here so let me just move to that because I had some suggestions that I think would improve that. First of all I think giving this person subpoena power is a good idea but I would add data to the things that they can subpoena because right now you have reports and something so you want to add data in there so that they can actually subpoena data if they need to and then in terms of the compelling testimony that would normally be through a subpoena so let's say that you had a commissioner or a secretary who would never behave this way but let's say that they wanted to stonewall this person and didn't want to provide information that this person would have the authority to subpoena that person to come and testify to them or testify to the panel or whatever process they put in place about that but I think what you want in terms of I would get rid of that penalty section because that doesn't I don't know how you charge a secretary $2,000 a day but I think that under the Administrative Procedures Act there are penalties for failing to abide by a subpoena that's issued by an agency and that's in 3VSA 809A and I think we would just want to reference that maybe as your penalty section which would allow the chief to go to court to compel that information from them and to have a court order them to provide the testimony or provide the documents so I think that would be the way to do that without and then that's a little less oppressive in terms of it's that penalty section in terms of making that uncomfortable for people. And then the only other thing I wanted to throw out there is that a lot of the civil rights conferences that I've been going to lately they have been bringing in folks from the Ford Foundation which is totally focused on issues of racial equity and they are doing some interesting work around, with the focus around more changing people's minds about how to think about these issues then around kind of some of the more old fashioned diversity type training where you just try to make people feel guilty and they just get mad and don't think about that. So I mean they're trying to really change the way people think about things through conversation and lots of other things and they might actually do some of this work for nothing. I mean I don't know how they're structured but they are interested in working with entities and to come into a state and do a whole full system thing might be very attractive to them. Oh that's a great idea. So that would be something that is worth thinking about. I bet we could write a grant to do that for the Ford Foundation. I bet they'd be thrilled to be able to help make that happen. I think that would be really cool. So I think that's all the comments that I had that were not already sort of taking care of. Just to summary, everybody offers a slight different generation on this chronology of chief consultant. So am I right? You're doing your summary of being so, let's just make a date. But January 1, you bring on the chief, still not the right title. And then they get six months to basically help identify what we would be asking for in the RFP. Is that correctly what you're saying? Which just happens to fit with the school year. So they would work on trying to figure out what needs, with the panel, what needs to go into this RFP, what do we really need to look at. I think there is a lot of data that's already been collected from a lot of agencies around this stuff. So it's not like you're starting totally from scratching. It might be that, for example, this person could also get going on some systems work. Where we already know there's data showing disparities that need to be addressed. It should be possible for this person to explore grants. Right, yeah, or write a grant to the Ford Foundation. The head of the Ford Foundation is a man of color. I mean he's been his priority for a while. And just what a clever person for you to remember. And I'm actually going to be with him in April. Okay, and I've been really impressed with them when they come to speak at these conferences. They're just really committed. That is brilliant. We would put in... I'm trying to think of the logistics of it. We would put in for a position. Half the year. Well, no, we put in a position for the whole year. But they'd have half a year to... I mean we're not going to cancel the position. No, no, no. I'm just saying we couldn't probably get them hired before half way through a year. That's from January to July. So we're putting in half the position for that year. And the consultant work would be done in the next, excuse me, budget. I just want to make sure that this person get is that... I know that this balance between having the commitment of the administration and having the... In my mind, that is the essential thing about how we work out that balance. And I do think that it can be done without them being completely independent. It was done in the state police. And apparently it was done in the agency of transportation. And I know that that position in this transportation took 20 years, but it was funded by the federal government. They said, you've got to do it. But I don't think that was the case in the state police. And I think that they themselves made a commitment to doing it. So I just want to make sure that we have the right balance here so that it doesn't seem like it's a confrontational position because if it's a confrontational position, and we're going to tell you what to do, it's going to meet with so much resistance that we might as well not have it there. Well, I agree with you there's a delicacy here, but I also think this is where we do well to articulate data better because in some level we're looking for someone to manage the data. And the data will tell the story. So to me the I come back to the chief being more independent because when the data is presented then people are going to have to make hard decisions. That's where it's a rubber meets a road kind of scene. I think we do look at the police all the time and the legislature compelled that data collection. It wasn't offered up as their own idea, it was something that we insisted on. And it's worth, or at least we were getting data. So I just think it is tricky but the chief is going to have the data there that's going to inform how we're going to look to change the culture more than we need this person to be just very skilled obviously. But if they have this foundation in the data it seems to me that who they answer to and all that is slightly less important. And so the data becomes really, really important. And for that to have integrity I think the independence is essential. I think data can have credibility depending on how the surveys are designed. I mean I don't. Exactly though, but that's the point. Well some of the data is already there. But the panel will have to approve the final survey. Let's hear from Karen, unless we have more questions for Karen. Karen Walker, that's a brilliant idea. This is a question we're trying to answer right now. Well it's a chronology. Who's done first? Who are the staff versus consultants? Both, or one after the other? Where are they at? So we've had two. You're our third witness and the first to have said consultant first. No. Thank you. I'm Carrie Brown, the executive director of the Vermont Commission on Women. And I just weigh in a little bit on this question about the chicken or the egg. I've been through the process multiple times of bringing in a consultant from outside an organization to do this full review and to come up with recommendations. They will, my prediction is that based on my past experience, they'll tell you, you need somebody like this chief officer. You need to hire a new position at the top level. You need to do trainings and those are going to be more specific ones, but they're going to tell you what you've already figured out you need to do. I think that there's a lot of value that a consultant can bring, but I think that the position is that you really are better off starting. And if you're thinking about investing state money, I think that a position is probably a better long-term investment. If you have the money to bring in a consultant and have somebody great, definitely do it. But I think that Karen has introduced the idea that there may be alternative sources of funding for that kind of assistance. And so I would just concur with the idea that bringing the position first and then figure out how to get that consulting done to elaborate exactly what they need to do. I have a few sort of little detail things about this bill and some of what you've already addressed. As far as the name, I don't have a brilliant idea for the name, but since this is specifically about eradicating systemic racism, I would put something of racism in the correct. Because equity or civil rights or anything else like that, it sounds like they're doing more. And if you want to keep that focus, just keep that focus. As a question about people of color on this panel, I agree that we absolutely have to have a majority of people of color on the panel. And the way our statute for commission on women is written, it says that the legislature shall appoint six members, three by the speaker and three by the committee on committees, and that no more than, I can't remember the number, can be current legislators. And so you have two different appointing authorities, technically the House and the Senate. Together they can't have more than a certain number of current legislators. So they have to talk to each other. They have to look at who's already been appointed. And so you could just say that no fewer than three will be people of color. And they'll figure that. And they'll figure it out. They will. But I would put it in there. We also have in our statute something about, it says members of commission shall be drawn from X, Y and Z kinds of diversity. It has no impact at all. Just sort of a general, this is what you should do. It has to be members. Those are served in our experience. Oh, and also in the statute where you talk about the staggered three-year terms, you're going to need to specify that out. Which, yeah, this one will start here and end here. And you only have to do it for the beginning. But you have to set up the staggering at the beginning in the statute. Oh, so I have a question. And this is something I just don't know about. But it popped up for me about on page four line six through eight where it says the proceedings of the panel shall be confidential. And I'm just wondering about the, is that kosher with operators? And the development of the RFP seems like it should be a public process. There's no reason for that to be confidential. I'm not sure why any of this needs to be confidential. But maybe there are certain things that do, maybe if they're doing investigations that needs to be confidential. But just as I say, blanketly all proceedings are confidential. Except for operating procedures and application forms. I think if this was written it was left over from the last one which only had the panel nominating to the governor. And I think that's when it was left over. I don't think we even need to put that in there. They'll know what to keep confidential and what not. Yeah, and they can always say we are the second obsession if they need to. Right. I think it was left over from then. Good cat. No, okay. Okay, so then now on page six at the bottom it says the Department of Human Resources shall work with the Governor's Workforce at the University Council to conduct trainings. That's not something that is within the power or capability of the Governor's Workforce at the University Council. And just in general it's mentioned somewhere else too about a report, an internal report. And that I feel a little squeamish about taking a body that exists in executive order and putting it into statute here when it may or may not ever exist again, you know by executive order it could disappear at any time. So I would say that this is really the department and you already talked about this whole training question. And so I think that you're addressing that that the Department of Human Resources needs to do training anyway and need support and guidance from this new physician. But I would suggest you just take out that the Governor's Workforce at the University Council part. And then I think that's it. It's four minutes. But if we're not going to do that now we don't need it anyway. Well I don't have any questions. Does anybody else want to weigh in on where we are? Thank you. And I agree it sounds like we've already made a decision about the consultant part of it. And I do agree with both Karen and Kerry that I don't think it makes sense to do that first. And I think sometimes the reason that people think of that is because you might not be sure to what extent the problem exists. And I think that there's a lot of studying that's already been done and there's a lot of data. So I think that even if a consultant was hired after he put the chief in place that if they're smart they didn't go after all the information that's already there. Because I've been doing this work since I was like 18 years old. And that's what I've heard every year. Let's do a study. Let's do a study. Let's do a study. Frankly it's kind of tiring. And the thing about trying to get around the contention around this issue you can't. I mean if you're going to an organization and saying that we've determined that there are racial disparities and systemic racism across all systems it's not a question of whether or not they exist or even to what extent it's how are we going to fix that. So I was encouraged to hear you say something about data and I serve on the I hate this title. Do you want to say it for me? The Attorney General's advisory panel on blah blah blah racial juvenile and criminal justice. And so a lot in I actually have been involved a little bit in the education bill that people are working on to try to get ethnic studies as the basic curriculum. And it's really interesting to be part of those conversations and hear the same thing in every place. Like we need to study this some more. How bad is the problem really. I mean it's really bad. Karen and David's report has information about it. You know I mean so just from somebody who's kind of been pretty deep in it a long time and experienced it myself I think you guys are moving in the right direction and I just really wanted to say that I do agree with what both of Karen and Kerry are saying about the order in which you put those things in place. The other thing that I was asked to do Mark Hughes is sick today so he just asked me to read his testimony. It's not terribly wrong so Well you're looking at studies are what we do and we aren't sure what to do. Right. But I mean there are there's a lot of information that's already out there. Or when we know we need to do something but we need facts and figures to back up. And also to even just know which direction you're going. No way. Okay here we go. Mark Hughes it says Mark Hughes executive director of Justice Baral. I won't be appearing today due to illness. We have put forward language for composition and process surrounding this commission. Further we have outlined a legislative approach to address racial profile and use and use of force to areas that most certainly require attention at this time. Finally we have provided an approach to expand the HRC as civil liberties are under attack at a national level. We have received no indication that any of this is important to the senate committee on government operations. Meanwhile we have watched as you enable law enforcement to become increasingly self-governing S192 provide additional power and authority to the public safety commissioner S198 and place additional law enforcement seats on the criminal justice training council while moving civilians S273. We are in fact still waiting to see the response from this body oversight law enforcement in the state to the Vermont criminal justice training council's unilateral change to the fair and partial policing policy that happened on November 21st 2017 in response to threat of federal grant lawsuits. Vermont spends over $574 million annually on so-called public safety and brags to be the safest state in the United States just who is safe in Vermont where we have 4,000 law enforcement officers excluding federal and 6,300 African-Americans where one in 14 in the males are incarcerated you know I got to stop right there like you really have to ask yourself why are jails in Vermont looked the way that they do. It's either because black and brown people are inherently more criminal or they're being profiled. One of those two things is true. They can't both be true. And if you look at the data that the department of corrections is happy to provide for you that has been the case for as long as I've been involved in this and I've been involved in this I was one of the first people that asked for data collection named Chittin County in an organization called Uncommon Alliance that our jails have looked the way that they do now since then. You can't see the relationship here more concerning is the fact that you just don't get it. And as the incarceration rate of African-Americans has gone up now to 11% where as most insulting is your audacity to once again bring someone like Mr. Reed in who has been on the state payrolls for the past 15 years with no apparent success and hold them out as somebody was actually seeking to fix the problem. Can I just finish? It's about like results based accountability. But it shouldn't be about I'm reading someone else's testimony. Seeking to fix the problem that some people continue to profit from. This is less a reflection on him and more a reflection on you and a perfect example of how some things don't change. That in your deliberations that at some point you will come to the conclusion that you're part of the problem. And in either way perhaps this is precisely what we need as a state to be in our much needed wake-up call. As I have since day one I ask you that you adopt the language that coalition proposed, sponsor, support amendment and pass S-281 out of committee as a funded independent commission. Thank you for taking up S-281, providing us the opportunity to testify. I mean different people have different truths, right? It's still America, right? Yes, but we don't we try to treat everybody with respect if you're not put anybody down or talk about people's culpabilities or that you have to take all the results. And if you do the same thing and get the same results you shouldn't do the same thing over and over again. And we're trying not to. We are working really hard and I do want people to know that first of all in getting tons and tons and tons of emails and notes from primarily Burlington and Washington County that insist on this being passed as was put forth by the panel, the racial justice reform coalition. That isn't going to happen as it's put forward by, it isn't going to happen. We've already moved past that so we're trying to incorporate and do the best we can and I don't think anybody here has any thoughts that we're just playing games or not doing anything. We're trying really hard to do the best we can here and to get something in place that really will work and will make a difference. Could I just offer, because totally separate from 281, the assertion is we've removed civilians from law enforcement which is the LEAB which is not accurate. Just not true. And that we have concentrated authority over law enforcement into more hands of law enforcement which is in fact the opposite. That's true. We've just passed the bill to put it into OPR which is our civilian oversight. I don't know where these ideas come from sometimes but then they get repeated so much and we don't correct them. Those are two direct assertions which are in fact the opposite of the work we're doing and it's not to say that there's not things of value that Mr. Hughes brings forward and that I totally agree with but I just need to correct those two details because they're fairly easy to correct. They're very easy to measure and they are just not accurate in the way he's portraying them. Yes, thank you. Thank you. I'm Diana Bolly. I'm with the Community Equity Collaborative coming from Wyndham County and I have some written testimony here that like Karen's was written before this most recent draft was done so I'll try to skip through things that have already been added and be as quick as possible because I know time's a factor here. This testimony stems from a meeting that I had with a representative group of our council that our collaborative that I reviewed the notes from our last meeting, the last committee meeting with and so these some of them are technical questions but others are more for discussion before a final decision or vote is taken. The first one is more just a question, technical question, that the words institutional racism or mitigation are used but is there a definition that should be included in the legislation that might help people who are newer to this topic or who are entertaining voting for it be clear about what the meaning of it is, an agreed on meaning and I put forth this was very googling on the people's institute definition but there might be a shorter and more concise one that you've already been working with but the question was just maybe put it in as a clarification for people who are seeing the bill for the first time. The second comment in this area about defining was just the realization and we've heard this certainly from the experience of the other people giving testimony that this kind of enormous task takes time and that we're probably talking about a ten year period here of really seeing change and feeling proud of the directions that we're going in. Regarding the advisory panel, the tasks and I'm thinking again of what we've heard about whether it's the HR commission or the council that deals with governor's equity and diverse workforce that these voluntary tasks are extremely time consuming especially for this large assignment and as much pay as you were able to give I think would be a good investment as part of the budget. It still will be voluntary in some stage but as much pay as you can give whether it's using the Green Mountain Care Board as a model where you did see dedicated work that was done in an ongoing way. Learning from that model I think would be very useful and we listed the responsibilities we considered from last week's discussion but the addition of preparing reports and endorsing them only makes that recommendation stronger. Along with everybody else that's testified a majority of panel members being people of color so now moving on to the chief officer position and the name which you'll find the best name but the president will not be perhaps somehow incorporating systemic racism is a really good idea. So on my page two of my testimony this is much more of a global kind of concern in a way has been brought up through the other discussions that you've had today. It's stemming from an experience that we've had in our part of the state regarding SIT's chief diversity officer so after much concern expressed by students at SIT this is the school for international training about just racial disparities on the campus within the way the programs were prepared with the faculty etc. Chief Diversity Officer was hired and I wrote here what I think are the key concerns about what has happened because after only four months she resigned and I think we can learn from although of course this is a much smaller scale this example than what we're talking about I think we can learn from it so and I think we can also research other situations nationally where we found a great vision for hiring a person to do this work and they have not succeeded so the main concern is a highly qualified person of color is appointed and expected to solve the institutions issues what evolves is they do not have enough backup or authority and end up resigning in frustration so what happened at SIT was a lesson in that way and that an excellent candidate was hired and she put forth a very well thought out comprehensive strategy but she was not placed in a place of authority within the administrative team and she therefore resigned so any thinking that is given to the way to create this balance that you're talking about of independence but also respect and partnership which led our team that looked this over to a recommendation that was one staff person that is being recommended in this piece of legislation but really we feel that a multiracial team doing the work would be much more effective and that might be that there is one point officer who is working on a cabinet level but that they be from the get go part of a multiracial team that has a whole range of skills and abilities we think is something to really consider and to build into the plan so what we said here was a carefully crafted job description needs to be developed in advance ensuring a range of skills that maybe one person couldn't have skills and ability reflected on the team and naming in advance the types of supportive framework and the environment that will support these new positions so from then on in that section the recommendation is very complimentary to the other testimonies of saying that the officer or this team if you consider that to be a good next step should be appointed right from the start and should be part of this whole needs assessment review inventory that is done they themselves if they are from out of state would learn through the process and certainly the inventory itself is the first step in an educational process for everybody that is doing this work so I think I've covered that and in this assessment section that we see the inventory as a power analysis the depth of the inquiry relates to the quality of the outcome and of course would be across the gamut of including recruitment, hiring, retention workplace culture, client advocacy and of course data collection I think this has been said but I'll just repeat that we are putting the participants in the inventory and in the review in a very delicate situation because we're basically saying you are part as we all are of a system that has racial disparities and so we're at my our words here were it's an inventory that's excavating people's worst fears and so the skill of the team that prepare this review can be estimated enough and so the Ford Foundation idea since that is some of the rocket they so Carrie has already stated that the Council, the Governor's Equity and Diverse Workforce Council really should, I suggested that we be part of the assessment and instead of it only being of the three branches of government that the Council also be included in that assessment so that if they might have recommendations for how their work could somehow realign but they could honestly say what their capacity is through that assessment Banna, do you serve on the Council? I don't, I don't but I'm just through your co-chair, right? Along with Lori and Albert, yeah and so in closing just to say that I've already stated what I think a comprehensive curriculum needs to be once the training is designed that that is the officers or the team of officers tasked that they design the training and are part of the overall implementation of it thank you I'm Steven Emmery the reason for being here is that I was born in this lovely town I spent a long time away, I'm much of it in Texas so I'm really glad it's the latest although you can run into this anywhere I have great experience with seeing people of use I've heard a lot of you make mention of how enormous this task is and while I agree with you wholeheartedly I think as some of these other people have testified the identity of the problem is pretty clear you just hire someone who has experience with this and they can tell you what they're going to find but if you want them to prove it then you'll have to show instances that it exists here but that's the only job they've got we know it exists but not to cast blame because I appreciate it very much what your people are doing but you are part of the system as well and you have to wear the badge I think you do very well as well I'm just encouraging you to do so and not be afraid of the task if something you're up to thank you now I'm more convinced we came in here but I think we have to make some decisions and if we don't make these decisions today and tomorrow it's not going to happen we have to have this out it has to go to appropriations we need to get it out I would prefer us getting it out tomorrow we can't wait till Thursday but we can't wait till after Thursday it has to be done by Thursday to help give us some data to make decisions on how much money and stuff we want to include I have Steve Klein and I've pushed back on him and just given us but I've also emailed a very close friend who is a McKinsey consultant and does huge consultancy projects and asked him A if he knows any with this kind of expertise and then has done a systems-wide analysis of something particular and what a systems-wide kind of consultancy would cost thank you what I would like to do is go through and list the things that I think we need to make decisions about when we get to the part about the money we can fill in the we can put a dollar in there and then fill it in we need to figure out and some of these are pretty logistical in little issues we need to figure out the name of this panel we have to do that so what I've heard so far is that we should appoint the panel by September are we still all there that we should in there say that at least three persons should be persons of now some people said persons of color and some people said should reflect an ethnic and racial diversity I think you just got to say people of color and if you reflect the ethnic diversity of Vermont I was just I hear you but I think we heard that it needs to be very clear shall be the majority people of color is a big range I'm just saying that we need to make these decisions that we can get the language and that it should have geographic diversity so we need to have that done by September then the decision is do we hire do we put in hiring a chief whatever that person is by January or do we hire a consultant first and it leads in both directions some people say we need to have a consultant first some people say we need to have the the consultant first to help identify what the what we're actually looking for and defining the what needs to be done okay so I was just saying that we had four people and one was the administration was slightly compromised because they don't want us to spend any more money and their mantra is no money and then we had three other people who've done this work suggesting we let the panel hire a chief, a mitigator of systemic racism and first so I would tend to go with the people of experience who aren't tied to the administration and have no financial agenda and so I would suggest that the next thing that the panel would do would be to appoint a mitigator of systemic racism I did hear from Mr. Reed that one of the things that the consulting team would do would be that there needed to be a point person but that the consulting team would actually help define what needs to be done and what that person needs to do and how to do an inventory that would lead to so I think I heard him say we needed a point person but we should do the consulting first and if that's wrong you're absolutely right but first he said hire the panel hire the chief, you do the RFP we just need to make the decision we just need to make the decision chief first for six months six months in the budget and the panel will do that where will this person sit because the new ethics chair and having to run around and get used computers and desks was a little sad to me I'd like to avoid that but I thought Karen's point was also accurate don't forget we have to stagger but we have to say the governor gets a point we can deal with that so where they live we have left to make well the question isn't what agency it has the most power the question is should they even live in an agency or should they be totally independent I tend to think they have to have some relationship within the administration somehow but I could be convinced that I'm wrong and the cloud and I don't know how the women's commission works if you have cloud and you can say agency of national resources you better do this that power is not but I think that the human rights commission would be a more equivalent but those are cases it would be as a result of a case so when we do a complaint we look at not for the relief if we're going to make a settlement the relief for the agreed party is one piece of it which is often money the other piece is we look at systemic issues within that agency or body that need to be resolved and we make them agree to adopt policies and to provide training and to do these other things so we have a systemic in nature and we have the ability to enforce that in court if they don't do it so as a result of that have you seen change in departments or in areas that you have asked for that and you have collected data on that is this in state government it's in state government it's in private within sheriff's and police departments in what state we have seen we have seen change as a result of that we did access I mean I did a lot of access with your commission also maybe if I could ask Karen a question were you around when the human rights commission was established I don't know was Bob the first no it was Susan Sussman Harvey Gullibach and then Robert Howe that would be helpful to understand that the physical questions were you always housed where you are now in the space I would agree with your chair I think that we have to figure out a way for this person to be at the table because I think this person has to be at the cabinet table for lack of a better term saying okay Tommy Anderson what are you doing about this and keeping people's being a very strong presence keeping them all aware I mean Karen isn't at the table she's an actual I mean that's got problems this person has to be at the table and considered a force of nature you know a force that's not what we're talking about I support this notion that they be housed in the executive branch and yet operating independently of the governor's office the thing I see is different is that any commands or suggested changes or that come out of the human rights commission come out as a result of a case that's where they come from we I think we need to have cases here that go to court that what we want is we want something proactive if there is an issue that needs to be somehow dragged through court and court orders be issued that's one thing but I see this role as very different than taking cases being in kind of a quasi or a judicial function actually giving orders I see this person this what we're hoping for here is to have really buy in a positive movement and so I see it as very very different and effecting change I mean really being a change maker and that may take as Diana says so where do they live? I think they have to because I admire and applaud Karen but I know Karen is not Karen is there everybody is somewhere but that doesn't get you into cabinet meetings but I'm saying it doesn't get you you can't mandate what meetings you get about it too but we could create a cabinet position I believe we could do that channel your inner obi you can't say governor you will have this person in your staff that's crazy you can't do that I'd be amazing if that doesn't run afoul you had a good conversation with Suzanne what does it make sense to speak with her and tell her what we're looking for to see how that can happen you did talk about secretary what she suggested is having this consultant first to do that to lay the groundwork we've moved off that idea then we can have a conversation with her again about where the person actually lives and can we create a cabinet position I just made that up but we can find out what we can do if we made an agency mitigation of systemic racism and made it an agency then it would be a secretary and it would be at the cabinet level and we did this with the agency of education we created a cabinet but there was already something there and we gave the governor you get to name a secretary I agree circle around Alan we need to sleep on a lot of these let's see what else mitigator of systemic racism chief mitigator what else do we have to we don't want to have the penalties right because the penalties already exist under the APA but to compel data I think the language in here is managing and overseeing the statewide collection of race based data and ensuring such data are publicly available that's pretty good language I don't like creating model policies but I never like model policies myself do what call the NAACP and ask them around with us you mean to create this bill well at least it drives if not actually I bet they would we've got to pass a bill by Thursday we're only the first cog in the process is also going to go to the house we have no doubt on everything we so carefully tried to do anyway so we're trying to create a framework that will we got back the penalties you said you're a part of the executive are you within an agency it is your your own agency and you as well I mean the ethics commission isn't a donation and you scrap around for chairs and computers we scrap around for everything it's what you can afford so maybe that doesn't satisfy my concern but it answers direct BGS to give them space but then it comes out of their budget it will come out of their budget of course if we can get rid of all those 1200 guns that they have stored there will be a lot of space well we're not going to get them just scrap metal so their house in the executive branch but I would argue that they are that they don't have the muscle on a day to day basis as much as I love and respect what they do but they are still on the side by not being and I don't know what I really mean by being at the table I mean being involved and included and a little more fully than they are I mean they may feel differently but as an outsider looking at fighting for attention those values are great but they're on the side they may be in the executive branch but they're not I haven't seen the administration taking on those values priorities in both those commissions and making them happen in state government but some charge well but in some ways it is I mean why haven't administrations taken on the issues of equity and pay for women why haven't they taken on making a priority accessibility for all Vermonters they just haven't done those things why it was commissions exist but I would argue they aren't making it happen and I think that this person is really going to make it happen they have to be more woven into the fabric of how decisions are made and where money is prioritized and all the big decisions money resources and change so at one point we did talk about that the rub here is that if we tell somebody if we tell the governor it's going to be a cabinet level position it's really hard then to tell the governor who it's going to be when we started we talked about the panel forwarding a couple names and the governor appointing somebody and we decided against that because they were still beholden to the governor so I don't know that we can have them not beholden to the governor and have the authority I mean we have to I think we house them at the agency administration but we keep them independent we're not getting everything but we're I would rather have them next door or in the same office as the people they're regulating with independence than I've heard from that woman at transportation but it's an issue to try to change behavior of your boss is hard this is like well you try to change behavior of your colleagues that you don't actually answer to I think that's better so in the agency of administration but with the the person has the duties and responsibilities of secretary but that they wouldn't necessarily be it would kind of be up to the governor whether they sat on the cabinet or not they're at a cabinet level and they have those responsibilities and those duties but we can't tell the governor he has to let them sit on the cabinet so the cabinet has to work collaboratively with that and they sit within the executive branch so those two look okay then those two sentences okay well did you want to are you talking about the two sentences in B? I'm talking about both A and B I think we can take out but shall operate independently appointed by the panel because if you want to make sure it's independent I would say it but here this is within the executive branch what you're not saying here agency of administration it says it later on somewhere line 15 administrative legal and technical support of the administration so it's within the executive branch but it isn't under the secretary agency of administration they're providing support a lot of it in the end is going to go through HR in terms of trainings that's under AOA it potentially gives the discussion about buy in hair given this conversation we might entertain saying on line 8 something all housed in the agency of administration shall operate independently period and not say of the governor's cabinet but just say it shall operate independent I don't I think that if we have the concept here Brynn was here when we talked about this I think she'll be able to figure out the words I don't think we should word Smith because we're not the lawyers well she did she was here for that discussion and I think she said she could come up with some language through the authority of the of a cabinet level position and they were there but they were somewhat independent okay do we agree that the panel should also have the same kind of name? whatever whatever the panel is I think that we need to have something does mitigation mean make up for or is it not the same as eradication? that's fixing okay let's get the definition I think you weigh out an equal benefit or something well you've mitigated the results of planning taking up a lot of land I just think that that term is a little okay mitigate an action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something are you skipping pieces of it and thinking of the ones you like? no that's the whole of scrolling there and it tells me how to pronounce it too I'm scrolling down to see the next thing it says the act of mitigating or lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant as wrath, pain, grief, or extreme circumstances social support is the most important factor in mitigation that's enough I was thinking about wetlands what we need to do is make some of these changes we will come back here tomorrow and Betsy has been sitting here waiting all this time for another bill that we have left so I will get to Brynn and make some suggestions have her undo everything she just did