 Let's get going. Good evening. It's a fairly full agenda. I want to, I guess, primarily say just to start that I regret that I sent all those last minute emails, but as you all know, things are moving at this point really quickly around a lot of issues, not just in the state, certainly, but in the country. What I'd like to do first, though, is introduce Attorney General Donovan, who asked for some time now. He doesn't have a lot, so let's just, I'd like to allow him the floor. He would like to address us. So, Attorney General. Anton, thank you. I'm going to be really brief. I just wanted to call and say thank you, not coffee here. I must say thank you to everybody for their service on this panel and on the issue of addressing discrimination and racism in the interstate countries. I don't think it is. And I just want to thank folks. I know a lot of folks volunteer their time to be on this panel without compensation. And I want to acknowledge that and make people for their service. And I know we're asking a lot of people of their time, of their effort. And hopefully, as we go forward, when we change the way we do business, making sure that people are compensated for their time, for their good work, and not just the state workers were on the call. So I just wanted to say thank you. And I know that there is a full agenda. I know, Anton, as you said, things are moving incredibly fast. So just a simple expression of thanks and gratitude on my behalf to you all for your service and your good work. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. Well, I'd like to do what we normally do and go around that. Yeah, the table. I have to think about this. How are we? I know what I'm going to do. Jeff, introduce yourself, please. Jeff? Yes, I'm here. Jeff Jones, I don't know if anyone can see me because I only have one person in my screen. But I'm here. I'm in appointment. And I think everyone probably knows I think I know everyone in the meeting at the moment. If I'm missing somebody, I apologize. I don't know what to say about myself. Just, you know, name, affiliation, that sort of thing like we do every meeting. I'm retired. Lovely. David? David? Mr. Sher. Sorry, he's describing the unmute button. David, share with the Attorney General's office. Formerly the AG's designee and currently in transition to Julio Thompson, who will be the AG's designee for the next little while. Okay, Monica? Hi, everyone. I'm Monica Weaver. I'm representing the Department of Corrections. And I also wanted to let you know that Heather Simons, who is our Director of Training and Professional Development, has joined the call as well. Oh, great. Okay. Yeah. Pepper. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Pepper. Hi, everyone. James Pepper, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. DJ? Attorney General Donovan's in the middle here. Or you're in the middle of my screen. TJ Donovan, Attorney General. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. This is so un-knowledge-right. Anyway, Jen. Hi, I'm Jen Furpo. I'm with the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council. My pronouns are she and her. Judge Grierson? Good evening, everybody. Brian Grierson, Chief Superior Judge. And listening to Jeff's identification as retired after everything we've been through this spring, that didn't look pretty good there, Jeff. Pretty good gig. Oh, I'm sorry. And I've forgotten your name. You are from DCF. We just met. Yes. Hi. My name is Jeffrey Pippinger. I use he, him pronouns. I'm the Senior Advisor to the Commissioner in DCF. So I'm here in Ken Schatz's fed. Ken sends his regrets. He was double booked for this year. And he did say that he was grateful for the recognition that folks had offered him when he said he wouldn't be joining. And I'm happy to be here for me. Thank you, Jeff. Julio. Julio Thompson, Attorney General's Office Civil Rights unit. I know this team's platform is awkward, but I have to say there's some of you like Judge Grierson, Jeff, Rebecca, and others on the call. I haven't been in my office since February 20th, because I went on vacation before all this happened. So a lot of you I haven't seen for more than a quarter year. And it's really, I gotta say, it's really great to see you and to hear you, and not just to read emails. And so to second what TJ said, I'm glad you're doing this, but I gotta say it's you're you're all sort of a sight for sore eyes. So good to see you. Sheila in here, Julio. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Sheila. Are you? Hey, everybody. Hi. Sheila. Sheila Linton she her pronouns out of broader borough community at large member and representing the Root Social Justice Center. Chief Stevens. This is Chief Stevens. I'm with the Nalhegan Band of Kusak Ebenaki Nation. I think the spirits are messing with me in this room because for some reason, the video on my screen is sideways. Hopefully it's forward. It's straight on yours. So I have no idea what's going on or why it's sideways because my laptop is normal. So, okay. All right. Well, anyway, I could shut off the video if I need to, but for now I'll see what I can do. Anyway, it's got to be the spirits in the room messing with me. So anyway, there you go. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. Things are moving. That phone number, Senator Ballant. Senator? Senator, if you're talking, we can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, I'm having all kinds of technical issues over here. I apologize. So Senator Becca Ballant also out of Brattleboro, I represent Wyndham County, and I'm the majority leader in the Senate. And Aiton was kind enough to invite me to the meeting tonight. There are things moving very quickly in the legislature as well. And I want to make sure the work that we're doing is in line with the work that you've all been doing at the RDAAP. So thank you Aiton for the invitation. Thank you for being here. Curtis. Curtis, we can't hear you if you're there. We'll come back to you in a moment. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you now. All right. Thank you. So Curtis Reed, Executive Director of Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity. And I'm just now circling back to the meetings thanks to technology. So Anne-Marie Brattleboro. Thank you. This will be extremely awkward, but 802-461-6446. This is getting a little blade runner. 4616-446? Whoever you are. That's me. That's Heather Simon. I forgot I have a phone number. Yep. Heather from Corrections. Thank you. Captain Scott. Gary Scott, State Police. 100 days till retirement for me. So this is the end. I'm with you, Jeff. I'm almost there with you. Okay. Jessica, please. Hi, everyone. It's Jessica Brown. She, her, hers pronouns. I am a community at-large member on this panel. And I also am the managing attorney for the Chinden County Public Defender Office. Gary, I want you to know that I gasped out loud when you just said you were 100 days from retirement. I'm like a million days from retirement, because I'm so dumb. And I think that's everybody who's here. I'm just checking to make sure. Did Rebecca introduce herself? I'm so sorry. Hey, Todd. Hello. It's Rebecca Turner. Good to see everyone. I'm head of the Appellate Division, Matt, hilarious defender generals designee on this panel. I love the strong brat of borough presence here being a brat of borough native. Welcome everyone. Okay. I'm hoping I haven't left anyone out because you're all like in a really weird simulate crumb right now. If I have, just shout. Oh, right. Me. A-Ton, Nasser, Red and Longo, chair, and he, him, whatever, nail pronouns, sorry. Great. Onward announcements. Let me start. Again, my apologies for being sort of non-compassmentous over the last six weeks. And right now, as I noted, and we've all been talking in this preamble, it's all going very, very quickly. And the emails are coming hard and fast. I apologize for that. There is a note that Ken Schatz wrote that was absolutely lovely. And I really wanted to read it now, but we really don't have time. So what I'm going to do is I'm gonna forward it to everyone. It was just beautiful. And I really, I don't know, when we're all like humans again, I'd like to get a card perhaps and actually have us all sign it and send it to him. So I will take care of that. And again, when you're not on my computer, we can do that. Next, I've amended the agenda that you have in front of you to include the few things that have dribbled in over the past few days. So I want to start as I have on the agenda with the Justice for the Investment Bill, which will be David. Then I would like Julio and Jeff to address use of force and Julio to go into H464 and H808. Then I want to have a discussion and I hope you all have time to consider it. H219, the Act requiring law enforcement to comply with race data reporting requirements in order to receive state grant funding. As I said in my email, I need to know what this body as a whole would like me to say to Senate Judiciary on this Friday, sometime after 10.05 and before 11.30. I know that's really, really specific, isn't it? And then after that, why is this not working? Because it's technology and it hates me. The proposal, the document sets you regarding the modernization of law enforcement. And I'll speak to that. So I know in terms of announcements, there's one other and David, could you please fill in what you were saying when we started, when you introduced yourself? Sure. As I alluded to briefly, I am going to be taking a bit of a leave of absence from the Attorney General's office just for the summer. I do plan on being back in late August. But in that interim, Assistant Attorney General Julio Thompson will be taking over as the designee to the panel. And he is very well suited to do that. I know that I believe really most people on this call know Julio already. So I think he'll be great. But I am here for this meeting to help with transition to make it smooth and I'll be taking minutes again tonight also. And God bless you for the thought. Okay, without further given speaking of transitions, why don't you take us from your announcement to H338, the present status of the Justice Reinvestment Bill. And I would say also focus on where it's at in terms of what our responsibilities as a panel are to fulfilling that bill's needs. Sure. So in terms of what the bill asks of this panel, it really hasn't changed much since we discussed it a month ago. The bill has been winding its way through the house. There has been considerable debate over various aspects of it, but really not on the key section that talks about what will be asked to do with respect to the data study. So the update that we gave at the last meeting is basically still current. It did pass the house. And it's back to the Senate, so there will probably be some rehashing of some sections. But I believe that or I anticipate that the section that gives us the assignment of working with a number of entities to look at race data collection in the criminal justice system, I don't anticipate that that's really going to change. Okay. Do you have a sense of when I guess I want to know as the chair when I have to start moving, you know, making context with the sentencing commission and bringing them in because we had talked about that additionally. Yeah, that's a good question. I think everything is a little unflux these days, but I think the legislators hope would be to get that bill completed by the end of this month. And I think once it's done, I would say that there's no no reason to wait after that is to start reaching out and start setting up how we're going to communicate with the other entities that are going to be doing this work. Okay. Okay. But by the end of the month then. Thank you. Questions, discussion, commentary, and God knows that's going to be fun. Just technologically. Anything from anyone about this? Okay. Thank you, David. Moving right along. This is great. We're doing so well. Julio, or no, no, I'm sorry, Jeff. Jeff. Okay, here, it takes a while to manipulate. That's okay. You want to talk about the document you sent to all of us and what you would like to see done with it. You know, I got a bounce on a lot of people. Let me just do you want to speak to it for a second or I can pull it up and speak to it for a second? I got a bounce from a lot of emails. I'm not quite sure why. Well, why don't we start with Julio and then we'll come back. Okay. Okay. Let me do let me pull mine up here. Sure. Julio, H 464 and H 808. Can you please do the presentation on those and talk about their status and the legislature at the moment? Sure, let me pull up the bills. So I have them in front of me. Thank you. So I'll start with Bill H 808, which I would just call for shorthand the deadly force bill. This was a bill that was introduced in January by representative and Donahue from Northfield, who a lot of you know, has worked in the area of mental health for for many, many years, as well as coach Christie out of Hartford, representative Colburn in Burlington and and Jessup in middle sex as well. This really has to do with creating a statewide policy and standard for the legal authorization for the use of deadly force. There is a minimum standard. There's lots of people on the call. Judge Greerson. I'm looking at Judge Greerson. I'm looking at Rebecca and David as well and Jeff and others who obviously know the constitutional standard for for deadly force to that it needs to be objectively reasonable in light of all the circumstances. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit states from raising that floor or at least clarifying the lines about where the floor is to to say what under their state law as a matter of statute deadly force by a police officer would be justified. And I think a key component of this law, which I think is map is modeled on a California law that was enacted last year, which in turn was inspired by some police department's policies would include a necessity component of justifying the use of deadly force. The notion the idea that force would be necessary would expand your examination from not only what the officer was perceiving at the time they use deadly force, but what circumstances led up to that encounter. And to find out whether it was in fact that the officer had really no reasonable option but to use that our office and we've had some discussions about this very recently. A lot of police departments outside of the statute are actually using a three part standard. They're saying reasonable, which is the constitutional standard necessary and proportional to the threat presented. And I could talk about that proportionality issue later. That's not in this bill, but I think if there's testimony on the bill, our office will probably talk about it. And I wanted to hear people's reactions to it tonight. But there are a number of states that have besides California have set the standards for authorizing the use of deadly force Washington state being one of them that I know. And I think that historically, and I mean for many decades, if not more than a century, when there's been an evaluation of a use of force, particularly deadly force, the focus has really been very, very narrow from both prosecutors or if there's a civil enforcement mechanism to just what happens when the officer actually squeezed the trigger or there are other forms of deadly force. A head strike with an impact weapon might be one where you broaden the look at what the officers were doing prior to the use of force. Did the folks who look at this a lot sometimes use the phrase officer created jeopardy? Is the officer doing something that created a circumstances where they had what they weren't required to do to take certain actions, but that precipitated the use of deadly force? And I think I would expect that our office and TJ is there to tell you about his letter to the legislators, but our office thinks that, I mean we had testimonies on this in government ops, I think on one day in late January, I testified, Commissioner Sherling testified, there were a number of community representatives who were testifying, I just came in from my portion of the testimony, so I don't recall everybody's name off hand, but it's basically been inactive until or off everyone's radar screen I think until now, and our office I think has thinks that it's time to put it back on the radar screen and and have that conversation. So that's what H808 is, I could stop now and invite comment or questions about that. Sure, I have a question. Currently, I can't see all speakers, so could I hear people say who is talking, so I know. Oh, sure, this is Curtis, Curtis. Hey, Curtis. How you doing? So, Julio, the, as it stands, does every law enforcement agency in the state use a separate or different use of force policy? There is not one required policy for all agencies, so I think in practice, and David, I think who may also have seen a lot of these and folks here from the Criminal Justice Training Council could talk about it. A lot of them borrow the same language, but I don't think there's uniformity. Okay, and so what this would do is bring uniformity into an otherwise chaotic system? Well, I think that's right. I mean, I think they're uniform in the sense that as far as I know, they all articulate the Fourth Amendment standard, but I think that, you know, and what the Fourth Amendment means depends very much on who's on the Supreme Court in a given year or decade, but as a matter of state statute, every state can articulate what they expect the standard to be, so even if you might satisfy the Constitution, you might still violate the standard, so I think this does propose a statewide standard that applies to everyone, even if the officer's conduct might satisfy the latest five to four vote, so to speak, from the Supreme Court on the issue of what use of deadly force might be justified, so consistency would be provided. Okay. Other questions, discussion, comment? Julio? Yes. Where is there, we have the panel. What can we do? Um, well, I can, I can ask, offer a TJ, it's an opportunity to speak. There are also supports getting this bill moving, and having the discussion, we were not satisfied with a single hearing about this when it happened in January, and this is a conversation we'd like to see happening. We have a very short legislative session, and if people have ideas to improve upon it or have some other alternative or want to voice support, we want to hear that. It's really, really important, I think, when we're working on this, not for people just to react to something that someone else has written and say yes or no, but to ask questions about it, to see if they can broaden it, if they can change it, maybe it's in the wrong direction. I myself, in civil rights, and I think our office, we want to hear all of that, because we don't, we, our office did not draft this bill. It was a bill that was introduced independent of our office, but the concept's there, we thought these are things we can get behind, California's gotten behind it. Some agencies like the one that comes to mind is Seattle, has been, has a similar policy that's been in operation for years, so it seems to be going in the right direction, but I don't want people to be on this panel or when we talk to the community to feel like they're restricted by what the words are on the page. If there's something else or a different direction or they have an example from somewhere else, we'd want to hear that. Hey, Tom, can you hear me? Yes, I can. I have a question that maybe jumping the gun, but I remember David mentioning an item that we probably should address and maybe TJ can answer this, but it was about reallocating this this panel, because that was due and then that was still working its way through the legislators, because I don't know how much we can do if we're not, if we lose that this panel, right? So go ahead, Dave. I just wanted to ask the question. No, that's a good question, and I can tell you that it is in actually, I think it's in two bills right now. I am calm. The legislature is very aware of it. They will. They want to, you know, extend this panel, and I fully anticipate it will be. I don't think there should be any issue with that. Great, because I do know that they're going to take a recess at some point and come back in August, and I think they'll be here until their business is finished towards the end of the year. So it's kind of a different legislative cycle than normal. So I just wanted to verify that. Thank you. That's a great point. In fact, I could just follow up. Dave knows much more about what's going to happen with the panel, but I would also say people who are not on the panel, so if they don't reauthorize the panel, I still, I mean, Chief, people know who you are. They know the perspectives you represent. They know where your ideas come from, and so we want to hear from everybody whether, whether or not it's under the official title of the panel. So however the panel's reconstituted, I mean, if for somehow it were reconstituted that you weren't on it, we'd still want to hear from you because people will listen. I mean, we're certainly listening, so I just want to say that. Thank you. I know I'm pretty well. I don't worry about holding back. Obviously, if I feel something needs to be said, I don't really have an issue saying it, but I was just thinking more of an official capacity. Yeah, I agree. Thank you. Hey, Tan, it's Rebecca. I have some questions for Julio in the presentation of discussion of H808. Is that the right number, Julio? I just pulled it up and I skimmed it, so I haven't looked at this closely, but I understand the way you described it is that it's proposing a heightened statutory standard for use of force that is currently required by the Constitution. Is that right? Well, I mean, I think it depends. I mean, there might be some federal judges who would say that the Fourth Amendment requires necessity and other courts would disagree about that. I don't think the Supreme Court has taken that issue up directly, but this is an opportunity, and I think California took the opportunity to just say like Washington before it, we're going to set the standard, so that kind of move. I appreciate that. I just wanted to understand and just general on a general level of what's being done with that bill and what isn't being done, because I'm actually cognizant of what's missing. Forget about looking at the individual terms and the specific language in there. I just looked at the reasonable officer standards embedded in there, reasonable officer who fears looking at the totality of circumstances, threatened, right, being threatened by a fleeing person. All of that has embedded subjective valuations, which is a proxies for racial bias to enter in. So I see fundamental flaws in that, so it may be increasing the standard right now, but it still is bringing in problematic language we struggle in. But that aside, that bill, as I understand it, is heightening the standard, but it's not establishing an all-out ban on the particular use of force. Like I understand that in the past few days there have been proposals of banning specific types, choke holds. You talked about pulling the trigger, of course we're well familiar that use of deadly force can be a need to the neck. It can be a choke hold. So is there room to propose not just heightening the standard, but actually banning, banning the use of either specific, then alternatively, here's the third part of it. So heightening the standard, banning outright, replacing, right, we've seen calls to defund the police, dismantle the police, more specifically moving certain responses and responsibilities away from the police to other places where you don't even bring in a gun into the situation so you can have instant de-escalation, instant non-use of deadly force. I just want to throw those three things out on the table for this panel. I would react by saying absolutely, I mean, this was a bill that was introduced in January when people were focused on the issue in a very different context. When I referred to other police policies, like Seattle, for example, I could give other examples like Baltimore, I think New Orleans, we're in their policy. The reasonable necessary and proportional standard applies to all uses of force, not just deadly force, which is a very small percentage of all police officer uses of force. And I think that there are many other issues like flat-out bans on particular use of force techniques like chokeholds that I think are very open for discussion. What A-Ton is going to talk about tonight is a long bullet list of proposals that I think includes, for example, a statewide ban on chokeholds. For many departments, at least that I'm familiar with, and there's 17,000 police departments, folks, and I don't know all the policies, but the ones that I'm familiar with that I think are generally considered to be well-running policies or that have gone through the conceptic preprocess, they either prohibit chokeholds or say that you could only use it in a circumstance where you were otherwise justified in shooting the suspect. Jeff would know from his experience, that might be a case where people are on the ground and the suspect has or is taking control of an officer's weapon. But I don't think this bill forecloses that, but I was just kind of describing what the bill was. Our office, or TJ really, contacted the legislative leadership last week and said, we have some things that are in place that we can move right now, even though the days are winding down. Because our office had not seen any action on that. And so I think every point that you said are things that ought to be brought up and to hear from everybody about that. I think the issues of defunding are probably not something that's going to fit with an H808 that might be a longer discussion. But I think that particular is about the reasonable officer standard versus the reasonable person standard. I think it's very fair play. And that's something that, if things had run the way that our office or me personally also would have hoped we would have had those discussions in the winter and early spring, but we're hoping we can get that, some action on it now. Can I, Rebecca, would you like us to move on this as a panel? Do you mean move as in coming up with some recommendations? Yes. Yes. Sure. I guess if Aetone is inviting me to turn that into a motion, although I'll welcome some amendments to my motion. So I move the panel to consider recommending exploring legislation spanning upon H808 daily use of force to include not just increasing statutory standards, using statutory standards that avoid bringing in racial bias to those standards, but also banning certain types of use of force and also even moving to taking away certain responsibilities and shifting it to other folks to where we just, essentially for short and five words, defund the police, but dismantle the police, create alternative response teams where it is not the typical actions bringing in force to this situation that needs de-escalation, not escalation. Discussion? Hello, this is Sheila. I really appreciate what you said, and I can definitely agree with the sentiments. I have the same similar questions, comments, and thoughts, so I would second that motion. I wanted to put my voice into the space from a perspective that I have. Julio, you had made a comment that some people were focused on this in a different context back in January when this bill was created, and some of us is a very key word for that because many of us actually experience these type of treatments themselves, including myself. So I am going to take this opportunity to dis-personalize this because you had stated about not necessarily what we heard from others or what we're reading, but to be able to form our own thoughts based on our own understanding and our own experiences, and so my experiences is that I've actually had what I would classify as excessive force used by our Vermont State Police on me, and through this experience, I've learned many things that I question and wonder why exist or in policy or in law, and so some of those things that I've learned is that use of force in relation to the use of what they call paying clients, and I haven't heard a lot of language around paying compliance, but I became very familiar with that term due to my own experience with the Vermont State Police, and so I'm wondering if there's a conversation that we can have because it gets wrapped up in what we're talking about, and I agree with Rebecca that this is all subjective, that we can make what you're referring to as objective, reasonable, floor, and uniformity, and we will still have subjectivity within officers, we will still have bias, and we will still have people making decisions on how they feel or what they're experiencing in the moment that any policy that we have might help with that, but we have all the other things behind that, as including the enforcement of that policy, then it's a moot point in my opinion, because when people address the police with the complaint of use of force, there's always an explanation, excuse, and or a law or a policy that supports the police and the officers in that situation, so one of my questions is around the conversation of use of force and the use of paying compliance, and I do know some of the police agencies do have that, and I'm wondering maybe Scott or other people who are more familiarized with that can talk about that as well. I also have, I'm wondering if it's applicable in this conversation about what is considered resisting arrest. I believe, or one of the things that I believe is that George Floyd and many countless other people were killed for what the police would say would be resisting arrest. I would say that I was assaulted from the Vermont State Police because I was resisting arrest, yet in both of these situations, the pain or the paying compliance or the tools or the techniques that were used in order to disable me, George or other people were not aligned with the actions that were being done by myself or with George or other people in these situations, so I'm very interested in the component of resisting arrest along with the use of force, along with the use of paying compliance that these things all tie into each other. Sheila? Yeah, I just have one more thing, Atom. I just wanted to ask a question about what you just said. Sure. Are you moving that we actually amend what Rebecca's put down now and that this become part of what we do is in fact to expand the bill as it is at the moment? I absolutely meant that. Yeah, so I'd like to amend that to expand it to specifically look into this terminology that the police have used that are underneath their own policy and laws that I just haven't heard in these conversations that with people who experience these things actually have to go through and is actually the language that is being used against them in these cases. And the other language that is used and these are my own perceptions from my own experience that is used against you and you said it at the last things I think you said, Julia, was the persons versus the officer. And I think that is really, really key in this situation because from what I've learned, again, an officer is not a person. They're not a civilian. They're not considered a person. They have different immunities, sovereignty rights that are protecting them as an officer. And so when you talk about that context, what's reasonable for an officer versus what's reasonable for a person, I would like to unpack that some more because if a person who's not an officer was to do some of the things that officers do, they would probably be jailed. But because they're officers, there's some type of immunity and protection that officers have. I want that to be in a bill and I want that changed and I would like that to be part of the amendment. Thank you. I, Julio, you can answer this. I'm not, does any of that fit into this that we can actually do that kind of work with this bill? Well, I think a couple of things. First, when I was talking about the environment, I was talking about the environment under the Golden Dome in terms of the political will of the legislature. As I mentioned earlier, there was a single hearing, committee hearing and government ops on the bill. I was there. Other folks were there to testify about the bill, but then that was it. But the legislature, I think, is more focused on this now, which I think is a good thing. I don't think the landscape of policing was any better in January than it is now. I just want to make that clear. I think the issue of the difference between the reasonable, the reason what a reasonable person would versus a reasonable officer, the point that Rebecca and Sheila raised, I think are very ripe areas for discussion and advocacy. And in a different context, where I'm not burning the clock tonight because I know people are doing this in their evenings, I'm familiar with arguments on both sides. I think it's a very good discussion to have. On the issue of defunding or the issue, to take that issue, I'm not a political legislative expert. My sense is that in the last two weeks of the session, that's such a big can of worms. I don't know whether that's feasible to accomplish within two weeks. Well, and I'm not commenting on the substance of what's before us. I'm just commenting on this bill exists. Where is it? What can we suggest be done with it? How far can it be extended at this point? Or are we in a position that we have to actually advocate for another bill to be written? You know that. Yeah, I'm looking at Dave because he's a little bit more experienced than I think I was. I'm happy to address that, but I think Dave might be able to supplement it. I mean, again, given the time, I think given the time constraints, we're talking in June, the legislature's usually out by now. My experience tells me the bigger topic, if we go big within this bill, the bill won't, no bill will pass. That's my experience telling me based on other bills. Dave, you can contradict or supplement what I'm going to say. The issues that Sheila raised about paying compliance and what that means are huge issues. And I think I said earlier, but I want to emphasize deadly force is a very, very small percentage of force used in Vermont. And Sheila was talking about force that she experienced that wasn't deadly force. But it's nonetheless something that we need to address. Those are where most of the cases reside. So I'm very encouraged to hear that discussion. I just don't know whether as a practical matter of legislative process, and again, I'm not the expert in legislative processes, but that is a big enough conversation that I think if that were added to H-808, the result in two or three weeks would be no bill. At all, none. And so that creates a choice for people about what they want to do. I'm not prescribing it, but I'm just talking about my own experience. And there are lots of people here. I'm looking at a bunch of faces on the screen who are familiar with how the legislature operates. But there may be people who are uncertain or disinclined to pass the bill. That may have faced with the bigger issues, may just say I'm not ready to vote in favor of a given bill until we hear more testimony, et cetera. Hey, Ton, it's Rebecca. Yes, Rebecca. I just wanted to respond that I understand that our role as a panel is to provide the ideas and let the legislature and the political realities and the compromise that is inherent in the process go, but let us not short and censor essentially our ideas, right? I think that the legislature is hoping that this panel could come forward with a maximum list, whether there is a political will or a commitment to this issue to attacking this on a systemic level that we as a panel have discussed for months is a serious and long process. Shouldn't be our job to eliminate ideas at this stage. For Pete's sake, I mean, this is the moment if this panel can't come forward with the actual ideas to changing the forces that are in play that keep all of this in place, then who is going to present this to the legislature? I agree with everything you said. And Ton, may I say something? Yeah, please, Chief Stevens. This may not be popular, but I want to make sure we stay focused on the actual putting in what is reasonable, what is, because if we attack the position, then, and not, in other words, I was in the military. Let me use a, I was in the military. I was trained from muscle memory. You react and you do things because you had the training over and over and over again, and it's based on how you were trained and what you were doing. Obviously what I did and what somebody else did was two different things, and we were in the same position, right? So I want to make sure that when you talk about defunding police, or if you talk about maybe this reactionary force, which was in the motion, sometimes people don't have time to call a reactionary force person. They're in the moment, right? I mean, they can't stop and say, could you wait a minute? Let me call a reactionary force or in the instance, you may have bad, you may have people that they might use one type of technique as their first choice and somebody else may use it as their last choice. So I just want to make sure that we want to be, we want to protect our people, but we also want to make sure that we don't take away all the tools of our police force to do their job. And I'm just saying that, I know that may not be popular, but I think that we need to put the rules in place or put recommendations so that way people don't use deadly force or chokeholds as a first option. You know, I mean, they have to do some other things first. So I just want to say that. Anyway, I'll be quiet, but I'm just, I'm not against it, but in the motion, there was a lot in there and it's hard to remember all of it, but. I want to, two things. One, this exists. I think that I'm trying to reconcile what's being said here, what's being put out here with the fact that H808 exists is in the pipeline and there's a timeframe on this. So I'm trying to figure out right now and that was kind of why I asked Julio and David, I guess that if we are proposing this, it seems like further more, I mean, given what Chief Stevens just said, it's actually not completely congruent with everything that's going on. We need to have more discussion on this. I'm trying to figure out how all of that happens within the timeframe that the legislature has. Do people want to just squash it? I mean, it feels like we've got a lot on this and there's not a lot of time. I'm just trying to focus attention right now. E-10, can I speak for a second? Please. This is Jeffrey. First off, just a couple of sidelines. The Sheila, if you and I are standing in the street and I just as a normal person reach out and snatch your hand, you will automatically pull it back. I have seen that used as a resisting arrest with no warning. So you're right. Rebecca, I hear exactly what you're saying and yet I agree with most everybody here because I guess I'm a flip-flop kind of guy. But my point is we have to look at the transparency of the history of officers when an incident is reported. Okay. And the perfect example is the fellow that knelt on a neck had 20 use of force complaints. Okay. That's where I'm going. And in terms of what E-10 is saying, and it's on that basis that I wrote kind of a writer for section four, allowing access, greater access to the disciplinary reports to the state's attorney, the defender general, and some committee, which would be empowered to look at all of the past use of force complaints. Now that's going to get maybe impossible to get through. So the tagline on my proposal, which I hope most of you got, is quite simply, let's try and pass that one in this for anybody hired from this point. That's it. I mean, I'm still being practical, which is my job. I need to hear, I guess, from David and Julio about how to move the suggestions that are coming up here forward with this. Okay. Well, this is simply an addendum to number four. Okay. And number four kind of developed new statutory framework for release of misconduct allegations for a legislative consideration. I'm just trying to flesh that out a bit. I'm sorry, Jeff. Number four where? I've got so many things open right now that I have a number four. We can't, I can't hear you. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Law enforcement, modernization in Vermont, a partial road. Oh, okay. Right. Jeff, we're not there yet quite. I know, I know we're not. I know we're not. But it seems to be an appropriate time for me to throw this out because I'm not sure. I mean, Gary, if you were there, we were taught ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. They're all these legal frameworks, but it is the person in the moment who escalates, de-escalates, or loses it. That's my position. I think that's kind of what you were saying too. Okay. I'm going to recommend. That's what I was saying. I was saying, yes, that's what I was trying to get at. Thanks, Jeff. I'm going to recommend at this moment that, given that we seem to be bleeding over into stuff that's further down, and I think that's actually organic and right, that I'm going to say, let's continue with what we've got here, and then go back to this. In other words, make a loop back in the agenda. Because there's a lot of question here. Some of this stuff, I mean, Jeff just pulled up, that's coming up later. I think a lot of what Sheila and Rebecca are talking about is in that proposal, that document that I sent out. I would like to get through more of this to see if that's in fact right. Okay. You're the boss. Thank you. Then to continue here, H219, an act relating to requiring law enforcement to comply with race data reporting requirements in order to receive state grant funding. This is in front of you, as I said at the beginning, because I need to know what this body would like me to say to Senate Judiciary on Friday. I need feedback, and I'm actually, I hope David's taking notes. I'm going to do my best to do so. And I don't know how to do all that on one screen, but I'll do my best. So I'm hoping you all looked at it. I hope you all respond to it, and I hope we can go forward with this. I need it, in other words. And we come? Yes. I just want to say that was mostly what our report was based on was data collection. So I mean, we've kind of given that to the legislators about how do we make all law enforcement people submit the data, and it could be calculated or collected and calculated and reported on, and our body would look it over, or somebody would look it over to make sure to see if there's any patterns or whatever. So I mean, I think I personally would refer to that document that was drafted that we worked on for so long to help guide them in that bill. I mean, that's just my opinion, but we did a lot of that work. That sounds great to me, and I think that would be easy, and I think that would be simple. Are people with me with that? I mean, I need a motion, and I'm sort of thinking out loud that what would be nice would be for me to say to them, we've given you a lot of information on this. Let me refer you to the relevant parts of our report submitted on for December 2019. Blah. I'll make that motion. Anyone seconding? I'll second. Okay. All in favor. Now that's going to be fun. Is there a discussion on the motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm half-awake. Yes, Julio, go. I just want for everyone's information, because I know I sent you an email about that. But last Friday, the original bill was a, at least there's an amendment that's in circulation before the committee that would change the mechanism for determining whether someone complied with the race data collection requirement from the Attorney General's Office, the Secretary of Administration. So you may be asked about that in your testimony about whether it's uncomfortable or whether the committee is comfortable with that change in decision-making authority. And so I thought that would be something that would be useful for the, for folks here to talk about. Thank you, Julio. Discussion further? Okay. Julio, I got something. Oh, okay, Pepper. Yeah, the way that I read the bill, and maybe Julio or David might read it differently, is that what we're saying is that law enforcement agencies that don't timely report their data will not get supplemental grants. And I wonder if that creates a sort of situation where certain police departments will get all of the grants and certain ones won't. And you think about maybe a grant that might be related to data collection about improving it, and they can't get it because they're caught in this kind of loop where they're not reporting their data because they don't have the resources to report it and they're trying to get a grant to support their data collection and yet they're precluded from getting that grant because they're not reporting their data. I would just point to our discussion with Stephanie Seguino, Professor Seguino, about the necessity, the absolute necessity of funding data collection. And I would, I recall, VSP, who is probably the best in the state at this. I'm not saying that they're meeting any sort of gold standard in the nation for data reporting, but they're probably the best of the state. And yet they have one person that does this on an overtime basis to collect and report this data. And it just seems that we need to just acknowledge that we don't want departments that are bad at this to get even worse because they can't get any sort of grant money and that the police departments that are good at this are gonna be kind of the gold-plated police departments that, you know, and I just, well, then- I support the underlying principle. Is all I'm saying, I certainly support the need for timely quality data reporting. There's no doubt about that. But getting there is how we get there is gonna make, you know, is gonna matter. It seems to me it would be easy then for me to say what I had proposed to say to them, and also to point out that the report also spoke extensively about needing to fund this. Right. That's great. Then if that's what the commentary is gonna be, then I'm 100% supportive of that. Okay. Got Monica. Did you- you made the motion, correct? I did not make the motion. However, I agree with the comments that Pepper just shared and their plan that you outlined, or I want you to say. Who made the motion? I'm just gonna, like, put it out there. Jen, I'm, like, looking at a screen that is, like, blank. This is Jen. I seconded. I think Julio actually made the motion. Well, he asked for a discussion, actually. I don't even know anybody. When we make the motion, I just don't remember what it was. I love technology. Somebody make a new motion. Let's just skip to the chase because technology is setting the way of Robert's rules. I think John made the motion, but if he doesn't want to accept that, I'll make it on his behalf. Thank you. Hey, Ton. It's Rebecca. Can you just, for clarity's sake, repeat the substance? I will interrupt. Sure. I'm going to direct them to the report. I'm going to direct them to the fact that we spoke extensively, I think, about data collection. I'm also pursuant to what Pepper has just put in, going to discuss that we actually said, yes, data collection, but also funding. And I will bring up what Pepper just used as an example, that there are going to be departments that do not have the person power to, in fact, do the data collection that is being sought, that, in fact, that funding is critical to the successful implementation of this bill. Was that clear, or did I? It sounds like you're not going to say we support this bill or not. If, okay, we support this because we have spoken extensively about this in our report, data collection. I'll talk about that, and then I will say, and we also talked about the need for funding, and I will bring in Pepper's concerns regarding the possible disparities that could come up without the funding of data collection. Thank you for that clarification, Atom. David's motion, which I would second. Great. Are we ready for that? Are we ready to vote? nod your heads. You're great. All in favor. Just say aye. All opposed? This is Judge Grayson. I'm not opposed to the bill, but who's ever keeping the minutes because of the nature of the bill. I mean, it really involves the exclusive, almost exclusively the executive branch. It's a pure policy decision. I have not been asked to, nor any judiciary asked, to testify on this bill either early on or what I anticipate we would be. So I would just have my vote recorded as an abstention. And all the abstentions, including Judge Grayson. Okay, motion is carried, and that's what I'm going to say on Friday. Thank you. Again, that will be sometime this coming Friday, sometime after 10.05 and before 11.30. Now, I would like to move on, and this is probably going to take a fair bit of time, particularly given what Sheila brought up, what Rebecca's brought up, and what Jeff has brought up, because I think it fits, I think it fits into this document. I want, before I start, Curtis, are you, Curtis? Are you there? God, I hate this. I'm Curtis. Yes, I am myself. Oh, that's Curtis. I want to offer you the opportunity to present this. You don't have to take it. I can do it, but I mean, I'm just- Yes. I think it would be nice to hear from you, and if you don't want to, I get it, because good Lord. But if you would like it. I will defer to you since you're an official member of the committee, and I will provide any public comment. Okay, great. Um, this document has been developed by Commissioner Shirling, and with a lot of help from a lot of different people. In a lot of meetings, I, both Curtis and I have been on the calls to discuss this along with Tabitha Moore of the NAACP, and Susanna Davis, who unfortunately- Oh no, she is here tonight, because she's the only person with an X in her name. So we have all been working on this. It has been somewhat fraught, I will say. The discussions have been very genuine. They have moved this forward. I won't go into all of the nitty gritty of those discussions, because we could easily be here for another 45 minutes. But the idea behind this is actually to enact, to move in the direction that many municipal departments, not just municipal departments across the country, if you read the news or watch the news, are moving at this very moment. And frankly, the Congress is doing this. I mean, what was it yesterday or the day before? I cannot remember the name of the bill that Pelosi put forward. Anyway, this is in that spirit. And it has to do with modernizing, obviously, law enforcement in the state of Vermont, and in the process of doing so, actually taking up, not only in my opinion, a lot of the issues that have been before this body, but are currently involving this body in terms of its fundamental mandate, as put forth in Act 54 of 2017. It is offered, and I can say this, because there's been a lot of discussion among the people who've been asked to weigh in on it, that this is literally a draft. I believe it's even italicized. At the top, yeah, a partial roadmap and commitment. So this is not meant, and this is important to note, as a final document by any stretch of the imagination, you will see in it that there are a lot of moments where there are action verbs, development, develop or invent or something. This is a lot of room, in fact, to get the community involved in this, to get them to weigh in. What does that development look like? What does that implementation look like? All those sorts of questions. And so I would say, if you're looking at this as a final, please don't and really look at it extraordinarily closely and really think, who's doing this? That's what I did. When I first looked at it, I'm like, develop this, develop that. Okay, great. Who's doing this? Well, the point is, we don't know yet. The point is to bring in people who may not, at the moment, be part of the conversation to weigh in on this. And I'll leave it there. Does that seem reasonable, Curtis? Yes, yes. And I would add that from a strategic point of view, there are X number of law enforcement agencies in the state that are not functioning under a uniform policies, practices, training, recruitment. And this is really, from a strategic point of view, bringing everyone into the tent with clear policies and practices so that when you move from one jurisdiction to another, you're not working at the good, through the idiosyncratic or capricious nature of whoever the chief might be. So I think getting law enforcement on that page is really critical. Thank you. I would also point out that there's been a lot of groundwork on this in bringing a lot of law enforcement in on this. There are a lot of people who are on board. I wish I had a list of that right now. I don't. But I also want to point out, and this is part of circling back to what Sheila and Rebecca were pointing out, and Jeff, thank you, I'm sorry, that fourth point in proper conduct allegations, that this may be a place in which to put that discussion. Now, I also want to point out, as I say that, that this is moving people. I'm not normally wanting to go, oh no, it's racial justice, let's slow down. I was. This is going so damned fast. Because I was a little like, wait, folks, what about this? What about that? You said this, this is in contradiction to this. And everybody was like fine with it, and I'm completely misunderstanding what's going on. That's because it's a draft. But as I say that, please bear in mind, there are people way above my pay grade who are moving on this. This is going at breakneck speed, breakneck speed. So this is the time to put in all that stuff that we're talking about here that is aspirational, and it may more appropriately, and I'm not trying to curtail the discussion or cut it off, but it may be that it's more appropriate to go into this, that it isn't to H808, and that isn't to sideline that discussion. I want to make that extraordinarily crystalline. That is not what I'm doing. What I'm doing is saying it may go here, and that there's a lot of cultural weight behind this, and it's going fast. You're not going to have to wait. Right, and there's that creative tension between the state and community, where all the state actors are moving in coordination on this, but community is saying, wait a minute, let's slow this down a little bit so that we can in fact engage community members in a way that might fundamentally change the document. It's not as though we may all end up at the same place, but it's about process. To what extent are community members engaged in this finding of this document? It's on a bullet train right now. And I just want to note, and I'll be quiet then, that I really lobby for us all to consider this, because I think that this is absolutely, as I said earlier, under our purview. It's going fast, so this is the time to really get some stuff down on here. I mean, we're going to need to do this on email. Hey, Tom, it's Rebecca. I'm going to take that invitation and run, and go right to what Jeffrey suggested. And Jeffrey, I love your proposal. I was wondering if you would consider, and others on the panel consider taking it further. Your focus was building transparency on essentially releasing disciplinary records relating to use of force, unlawful use of force, and you were talking about having those disclosed to certain government organizations, right, AG, DG. What if we look to what the New York legislature has just been doing? It's pretty incredible where they repealed their 50A law, which essentially effectively now makes public to all, not just to the AGs, not just to the DGs, not just certain types of records, as I understand, but all disciplinary records and reports on police. And again, we have a model right there before us, and I don't know if folks have been following that. So I would suggest adding that, and again, I agree it makes sense to put that in section four. I would also add two more, right, if it's about what's that topic, that subject matter, is improper conduct. Why do police who kill continue to be paid and given the badge and allowed to kill again, right? Why do we allow this to keep happening again? My two other suggestions going to this systemic nature of what's in force and keeping these folks besides standards and uniforms, standards across the state. What about ending qualified immunity, right, for police officers? What about we propose this in a previous report, community oversight boards with real teeth, right? Not just going through and letting the community give some feedback, but actually having real teeth. And we propose that before. I would propose adding those three things to section four. Great. Thank you for the, I'd like the action. Thank you. Yeah, so Rebecca, could you define teeth? What did our report say? We worked so hard in that community oversight suggestions. Isn't it in there? I believe so. Give me a moment. Talk amongst yourselves. I'm getting it. I've got it here. I'm sorry. I have a hard stop at 730. This is Don. So I just want to let you know. The only thing I had to add to this before I go is if we could extend any of this training and all this to auxiliary and maybe game wardens, because they have a rest authority and maybe not auxiliary. But I mean, this is focusing on actual police officers. And I want to make sure that auxiliaries considered, not really considered, but they should have the same training, the same rules and rights as all the other. So that's all I wanted to say is extend it, please. Okay. I think it applies to all certified sworn officers. Okay. But I know like Champlain College, they, Burlington uses them in their law enforcement programs and do auxiliary patrols on Church Street. You know, that's what I'm saying is all the other people that are working in a capacity of making sure the laws are whatever. You know what I'm saying? It's just the other people too. I just want to encompass everybody and not miss anybody. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to have to go. Bye. Yeah, Rebecca. I have it here and I don't know exactly. It's on page four at the bottom. It's a bullet point in the report. Implement and expand training for officers promoted into supervisory and managerial positions to ensure that people occupying those key law enforcement roles will hold all officers accountable on issues of race, racial disparities, cultural competency, competency, and data collection. And then there's a whole another bullet point and expand and support and use the community policing approaches to law enforcement. I think maybe we didn't go as far as this, but I need to, I don't have it memorized. I'm looking at it on a screen where I'm also trying to look at you. It's a little, it's a bit cumbersome, but I do, I think you're right. I think that, and I would argue that this is absolutely in the direction of the report that we put out in December. Again, then there's precedent. It's in front of them. What more discussion? I'm talking too much. I have a couple of questions, a couple of thoughts. This is Sheila. Hi. I'm going to try to look at the doc at the same time. So in the document, I'm sort of wondering about this is mandatory training annually. And I was just wondering how that works. I've brought this up before in our discussion is it just once a year and then people come into the force at a certain time of year and then they have to wait a whole six months before they get trained or it sounds like it's like before people come into the agency that there are other things setting up. But then I feel like this annual mandatory training contradicts that. So I'm just kind of wondering how people read that and whether there's concerns with that and whether we can change that language from annual mandatory annual training to something that reflects that one, I don't think annual training is enough, to it doesn't address the issue again of people coming in at different times onto the force and when that training happens. So I had some questions around that. I also had some questions around the choice of language that is in here and just wondering people's thoughts based on our discussion over the last couple of years. One of them is to embrace, I believe it's 7B, to embrace restorative practices when we've talked a lot about extensively, whether we've agreed or not, we've talked extensively about implementing a variety of different community justice, restorative practices, defunding, de-escalating, all the DDDs. And just wondering why it says embrace rather than will or needs to or something that's stronger that actually moves towards that when it's been, I think, a pretty large component of our discussion. I also agree with Rebecca about teeth and about power. I'm wondering, like in an eight, it says something about the panels, but I'm wondering it says advisory panel and so what? So it's going to be the same thing, but no power, no teeth, advisory, what does that mean? And I think advisory panels get completely watered down. And so I'm concerned with the constant creating of panels to constantly try to reach out to what is said in here as marginalized communities to be on these committees. And yet I feel like we're perpetuating the same cycle that we're trying to undo. And so I'm curious about power around that. And then I'm also curious about the 8B, where we've talked a lot about funding. We've talked about this panel in terms of funding and we talked about other things with funding and that if we are not going to make our budget about our moral values and our needs to fund the things that we need, then why are we even doing this? If we know what we need to do takes money, then whatever's in these bills needs to pay, money's attached to it, not the maybe or what does it say in here says something like consider stipends for community members. And but we've talked about things extensively about how people need to be paid and people need to be represented. And based on who's at the table, considering even just the state officials and who are in those positions primarily and who is the community at large people and what demographic they make up is often very different and really concerned about that. The other thing I just want to say is I had a question around what if it's not considered deadly force, but the force causes death? Why does this only include lethal? Or does it not include lethal? It includes more than just lethal force and I'm reading it wrong. If somebody could clarify that for me, because what I, what some experiences have been is that the technique is used that's not considered lethal or deadly force, yet that might cause lethal or deadly force for that in particular person, but because it wasn't classified as something as a lethal force, then the legality around that is different. And so I really would like to open this up and broaden this to be a use of force. It includes lethal and deadly force, but not to eliminate the use of force because again, this objectivity to what lethal or deadly force is, is again subjective to the officers who are rendering it. Eitan, may I respond to that? This is Susanna. Please do. Hi. Hey, Sheila, I wanted to respond just because I asked that exact same question in our last meeting this morning about this topic. The example that I gave was, you know, it's like you have a snow globe isn't typically considered a weapon, but if you lob it at somebody's head, then you can get charged with something related to, you know, deadly weapon or something like that. And so if you have force that ordinarily may not be considered lethal, but it ends up causing or could cause death, is that something that is included? And I was assured in Eitan and Curtis, you were also there, correct me if I'm wrong, but I felt assured that that conduct would also be included in this definition. Mm-hmm, yeah. Yes. Yes. I know Sheila's uncomfortable with that because she wants it written out. I'm going to say, I think we should start, I think again, this is a draft. We need to put stuff in here now, right? Everyone, we need to actually put in this thinking. It, I cannot promise you, it's rather like our report. You know, I don't know what this is going to shake out and in the end look like. I can't, I can't predict that because I'm not the community, but I would suggest what we need to do is figure out how right now we're going to put stuff in here and send it back and then it's going to get, it's going to keep getting rehashed. It's going back out on the table for other people to comment on. And I feel like, I feel like we need to get on the train with this and simply write stuff and put it in as recommendations from our DAP, frankly. And I'm thinking what I, I guess I'm moving towards, once again, action. I guess I'm moving towards the idea that let's have some more discussion on this, but I'd really like people to weigh in on it in a written form so I can then put the recommendations together, mail them out to everybody out. I mean, and this is literally in like the next 48 hours. I want, I would like everyone to weigh in on this. I mean, given where this is and the nature of the document, this is the moment for aspiration. It is certainly the moment in the country for aspiration. I really feel like this, again, I can't promise. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a lot of things, but I do know where this is going. And I think this is the moment to put stuff out. And I don't think that happens very often. Who is it going back to? I think it will go back to the commissioner who immediately wrote it. I think it will get disseminated to partners in law enforcement at that point. I believe it'll go beyond that to, I know the criminal justice training council is in on this. It will certainly go back to them. It will go back to the academy chief with a B, God, I'm blocking tonight. It'll go to the troopers association. Thank you. Yes. And it'll go to troopers associate. I mean, it's going a lot of places. Yeah. If I can just make one remark about the training, the other sort of wild card is the training council, criminal justice training council, that their future is also up in the air. So in terms of the mandatory training or annual training, we have no idea at this point what or how the training council will shake out of these conversations. So Hulio, I have a couple of questions for everybody here. Is that okay? I just had a clarifying question, Hulio, for a second. Curtis, can you explain what you meant by what you just said? I don't think I understand what you mean by shake out, say more. Well, the training council is in transition. There's discussions about moving the council, which is right now independent, into the executive branch so that they have some oversight by either the Department of Public Safety or the agency of administration that would materially change how they operate. So that's what's sort of up in the air right now. And they're still without a new executive director. I mean, there's just a lot happening at the training council, which is happening on a parallel track to what's happening with this particular document. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Rebecca, you were, no, Hulio, I'm sorry. You're on top, Jason. Hulio, you were next. Okay. I just wanted to know or to hear from folks about things that aren't in this list and what their reactions were to whether they should be in the list. So a lot of these relates to officer training, misconduct, and use of force, which are all great and very important. What I didn't see in here is any discussion about issues related to traffic stops or the conduct that occurs at a traffic stop that doesn't involve the use of force. So in looking at other police reform efforts in the country, sometimes there are policies or that are up for discussion about things like how to handle what are called pretext stops. So someone, you're stopping someone, you have an ulterior reason you want to conduct a search of that person's vehicle. You're using the broken tail light as a pretext to make that stop. Under federal law, the Supreme Court in kind of a controversial case said that in most circumstances, pretext stops are okay. But in some states, like Washington is one that has, under their state constitution, it says you can't do that. That if you're going to do traffic enforcement, that has to be your reason for it. Another subject, so the reason for conducting a stop isn't addressed in here. And we've done a lot of work in Vermont about traffic stop data, but there's nothing here about traffic stop standards that's uniform. And I'm interested in hearing about that. The other one issue that I see sometimes come up is, has to do with consent searches, where there may be questions about whether someone, under the circumstances, is giving genuine consent to a search. So some places require written consent or documenting it on video. Some places require, when you ask for someone's consent, you have to tell them they have the right to refuse consent or they have the right to revoke consent. Those are some areas of police activity that I think in Vermont in particular, we've paid a lot of attention to the issues of bias or police conduct that don't involve the use of force. And so the question kind of, both from a policy and a, to use ATON or our, Curtis, your word, strategically whether those are subjects that should be up for discussion, because you could have a search or a stop that don't involve any force, but there may be still violations of rights or indignities and all sorts of pain that result from that, even though no one touches anybody. So I'm interested in hearing about that in terms of what the committee or what you've been hearing from folks you've been talking to this about. This is the exact reason why ATON advocated to bring this before you. Okay. These are two topics that we just never talked about. We didn't have the brain power in the room to make that happen. And everyone's tired. And Julio, it's Rebecca. I appreciate you bringing that up, Julio. You touched on something we talked on as a panel, talking about Washington State having under state constitution a different standard to avoid objective race neutral standards and actually trying to get at avoiding proxies for stops based on racism. So yes, we have those actually in the report again that was specifically relating to a standard, right? I would, and I like your suggestion on consent searches. And again, what you're getting at is in all of these analyses, you're talking about Fourth Amendment constitutional law. We have these legal standards which have developed over time, stripping the analysis of anything relating to the subjective nature of the officer. So it turns into a totality reasonable person. And therefore, if it ironically, as a lawyer, if we hear prosecutors say it is not relevant to talk about race or racial bias, when we know in reality it's everything behind it. I would also add to the to the subjects not talked about, right? Traffic stops, we spent so much time on traffic stoppers should be part of it. And we have so much recommendations on that issue. But consciousness of guilt is along that same, it's in that same area. Consciousness of guilt is the basis for how an officer can constitutionally justify a warrantless stop, whether it's the initial traffic stop, whether it's extension of the stop roadside, whether you can order someone out of the video out of the car, you can frisk someone. All of this requires certain specific standards, right? But what is the reasonable suspicion or going to arrest probable cause to search? It's based on consciousness of guilt. What are the factors that go into consciousness of guilt, nervousness, flight, right? How you stand, what you're wearing, what neighborhood you're in. There has been legislation instead of letting this go through the courts and precedent, right? Legislation and then again removing the subjective nature of, oh, that person looked nervous. We're looking through that with our, right, you know, our bias lens. We have legislation say no, consciousness of guilt can never be based on nervousness alone. In fact, taking a lead from our Chief Justice this scent, actually, because of concurrence, oof, concurrence and a recent opinion out, the Chief said that, that nervousness, he's highly doubtful how that could be relevant for consciousness of guilt because it's just, it's too much, it's too loaded in subjective how you mentioned. So it adds that to the table. He was talking about, I, go ahead, actually. This is Jeff. I'd like to diamond for a second here, if I might. Of course. Julio and, and with both Rebecca, I think that there's some pretty solid groundwork regarding a 2018 Swillow decision, you know, where that, that whole thing rolled out because in a snowstorm, he had inspections, his license plate sticker partially obscured. That was the basis for the stop. I like the language of that. I am not an attorney and, and and, but I think that's a good jump off spot for what you're saying. And I agree entirely with what Rebecca is saying. I was a trooper. I was nervous when I got stopped. You know, nervousness is, is, is normal for poor people, for people of color, for people of this, you know, disabilities, nervousness. I don't buy that one. More discussion. So do you want people to obviously look at this and then get any comments or? I, yeah, that's exactly right. And thanks for, thanks for going there. I, I'm going to leave before eight. So I just wanted to make sure what my assignment was. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Jeff. Oh, you were asking his honor if he did his homework, but I'm going to recommend that people put in questions, concerns, statements that are like the statements are in here. I want, I want you to send it to me and I want you to do it really fast. I am frustrated myself at the speed of it because I really like people. I feel like this discussion goes well. I'll say something moronic and she level chime in and go, wait, I've got a series of six questions and they're really detailed and I go, all right. Yeah. You know, and I really wish we could do that. Sadly we can't. The train is running and so I feel like whatever you're going to write, send it to me. And I think what I'm going to do and Curtis, correct me if this seems, and Susanna, please, I'm sorry. Correct me if I'm misspeaking here, but I feel like it's basically at this point and that could change 48 hours feedback. What do you got as feedback? And I'm going to send it forward. And if you're talking about specifically with this document. Correct. I also had a couple of questions too that I just want to propose to the groups and not only with traffic stops, but I'm wondering with cops on the beat or patrol stops. There's been a lot of people within my community that have been stopped while walking, while grocery shopping, while beaching, while, while living life. And so though we talk about these different scenarios, not everybody's always in a car. So I'm wondering for the officers who are on the beat and they approach somebody on the street and look like the person, whatever and people's right. Like I would like that to be within the conversation as well as the traffic stops. And I think that the glaring omission of traffic stops is a serious concern for me. Consent for research is a serious issue for me. And another thing I also wondered about was I call it like abuse of power. I'm kind of curious about the language in that I'm calling abuse of power by officers, which is what I coined as threats, lies and use of power. So them reciting a law and they're not attorneys, they're not prosecutors or not DAs or not anything. And they actually don't have the ability to do those things that a lot of officers say that they can do. And they often reveal, oh, I can get you this and I can do this. And this is how it is. And sometimes it's just, it's just late in lies. And so I'm wondering, and then there's threats, like, or if you just let, if you just consent, I will this. And so I'm wondering about that type of abuse of power, where I classify it as threats and lies to put a position, put a position, put a person in a position to either consent to something that they didn't want to, or just don't know their rights and all of that kind of stuff happens. And then I also wanted to know about the right to record. There's been a lot of issues, whether it's with the bystanders or with the actual person who is being victimized, that, you know, you record, they take, you smash your phone, you're not allowed to do that or put your phone down. I, in these days and times, the first thing I'm doing is putting a record on if I get pulled over. And the right to record, I would like to see if it doesn't already exist for people to have that right to record and for officers not to intervene in that. And then I also wondered, when we're scared of the police, who do we call? We're on the side of the road pulled over by a police that we think we're going to be harmed by. Do we call 911? Well, what do we do? What are the rights and to not exhaust like an ambulance or a fire truck or somebody else? Like, if somebody is in fear or isn't or is in danger, like, what is our rights as people to be able to call for help? Or what is our avenue to even call for help if the people who were supposed to be protecting us are actually the people who are harming us? I, I want, I'm hoping that this discussion is cross fertilizing people's thoughts, both in terms of going in those directions that have been spoken of and also perhaps not. I am going to propose that you all write, you write and you send it to me for the love of God, please don't write a dissertation. And I will, I'll compile it into a narrative that is coherent. I will, I'll get it back to you. And then I'm going to send it forward. I don't know when I'm going to do this, but I am going to do this. Yeah, I, there's a living document. But I think our next meeting is at 10 o'clock on Thursday or is it tomorrow, Thursday? I think it's Thursday because I couldn't be there tomorrow. Okay. All right. So, and then it's I said the bullet train has left the station. Yeah. Let me, I, in the interest of full disclosure, I am, I am currently sitting in Boston at the Mass Eye in Erin Firmary. I have a procedure tomorrow morning. I, I will do my damnedest tomorrow night under the influence of lingering influence aversed to, to pull this all together and get it back out to you. I'm not just saying that I will do everything under my power to get this. And I'm sorry it's such a press, but it is, it's nationally oppressed. It's globally oppressed, frankly, right now. I could wish for different, but it's not going to happen. So that's what I'm asking Brian. And I will do that. Thank you to the best of my ability anyway. That's all I'm asking for. Yep. No, I will do that. And I do have to run, but I wish you well in whatever procedure you have going on. Thank you. Thank you kindly. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Good to see everybody. Yes. Take care. Thank you. So I think, given that we have, according to my clocks, six minutes, Mark, if people don't feel like there's more that they have to actually say right now, I want to move us forward, which is pretty easy because we don't have much left. And that would be to tell you, which you'll find out anyway, because I send out one of my charming emails, that the next meeting will be on the 14th of July. That is the next scheduled meeting. Given what's going on right now, there may come out a doodle poll about when can we have another something in the middle here. I'm leaving all of that open because it's, as again, it's moving really fast. So I just want to put that out there, that that may be, that's a possibility. A lot of the panel is really quiet, and that's fine. I am hoping that if you have a dissent to this, you will put that in my mailbox as well. I want it all. I want it all. And frankly, it's not just me or Curtis or Suzanne. I mean, we need it all. The state needs it all. Anything else? This is Julio. I notice that there are these little cartoon or icon hand raises by Monica and Rebecca. Oh, Jesus, God, what have I done wrong? There's like a hand. Let me take that away. I've tried to take that away a few times. I tried to, I raised my hand probably like an hour and a half ago, and I tried to take it away. All right, Rebecca? Or was that old? I think there was something. No, they were, they were, it was old. It was old. Okay, Julio has his hand up as well. My hearty apologies. I think just two quick things. One, to respond to Sheila, she's spot on when we're talking about stops, we're talking about all stopping of people, I think, instead of just motorized. There should be no difference with that. So a great point to bring up. And when I tend to fall into the language of traffic stops, because that's what a lot of the data collection is for, but you're absolutely any time you have something you would call a non-consensual stop would be something that you would want to focus on. So I think that's perfect. I think the issue about recording, I think part of the conversation I'm interested in hearing about is whether there's views about standardized policy or increased training on response to First Amendment in terms of the crowd, the demonstration context. Okay. Because that wasn't mentioned in these bullet points, and I'm wondering what people think about that. I know I have little time, but maybe people can write about that. Sure. We have 45 seconds, actually. So again, my hearty apologies to Monica and Rebecca. I don't even know if I saw it. I promise you I will get more facility in whatever this program is before our next meeting. I'm embarrassed. I'm sorry. I think we've done it. I know I do this a lot. Yeah, Sheila. We'll take 10 seconds. Yes. Mark goals. What is our timeline for this document? We didn't talk about a timeline. I presumed this is infinity. This is fluid, but there's a zillion suggestions of develop, develop, develop, which I'm just wondering was any type of timeline discussed when creating this document and encourage people to put that in there of a timeline of implementation, phases of what this could look like, because obviously it's not going to all happen overnight and we have expectations. I'm just kind of curious about a timeline. This is my fault. There was a timeline and I got mad this morning on the phone call and said, take it out so that community members can actually weigh in on this. Wow. Curtis, help. No, that was, I mean, there were really discreet timelines for virtually everything that's on the sheet and we pulled that out because community members need to weigh in on this, both in terms of what do we mean by develop and then what is the reasonable amount of time to be able to achieve that. But there were very concrete deadlines for each of those areas. Like December one and yeah. If you all took that out, will you be replacing it with the thought of community timeline? So if you're looking to engage the community in these efforts, then there should be two parallel timelines, the work timeline and then the community timeline, which means, okay, we're working on this subject or this area of this policy, the community, we're going to focus groups now, we're going to have this now and like so the community timeline as well as the drafting and the implementation of what needs to happen, those two things coincide with each other. So I would love to see the timeline that you all came up with and I would love to see if people have thoughts and if I'm able to too, I'll try to do that to put together like community timelines with that. The community timeline has to predate the timeline that was in the original document because the reason we pulled it out was that we didn't have that the community timeline wasn't there. And so if we, you know, said September one, but the community schedule was such that the community couldn't get around to it until October, it just throws everything off kilter. So that's why we, that's why we pulled it because we wanted the community to define what those timelines were. I would, I'll close by saying throw it at me. Would anyone like to make a motion to, you know, find where your kids are? Well, I'm not on the committee, so someone else will have to make the motion to close. I'll motion to adjourn at this time. And did you just second Jen? I did. I seconded. Marvelous. All in favor? Hi. Oh, okay. We're adjourned. Go forth. God bless and I can't wait to see what you guys send me. Thank you, Ian. All right. Thank you, Ton.