 Welcome folks. This is a house corrections and institutions meeting to continue our work on the racial equity language for department corrections. We had a small working group of four of us working on language yesterday morning, late morning, early afternoon with Becky. And the draft of that language has just been posted to our committee webpage. And it is the second of the two documents that are listed that we will be going over. And having said that, I think probably the best thing to do is post it, is bring it up on our Zoom screen. And then Becky can start walking us through the unedited draft. It had not been proof read yesterday because we didn't finish it until about the middle of the afternoon. And it just got proof read this morning. So Becky had sent out to the advocates, everyone who had testified to our committee, and I had sent it out, the draft that we had, the unedited draft. At that point, we sent that out late yesterday afternoon and early evening. So all the folks who have testified before us do have a copy of this, and we're invited to attend today. So we have with us Heather Simons from DOC. And if the other folks come into the waiting room, Phil will let you in. Those who testified to us last week and Tuesday. So any questions from the committee members? If not, I'll turn it over to Becky to start walking us through this. And this is something that the four of us, Marsha, butch, Terry, myself worked on yesterday to incorporate all the thoughts the committee members had as well as the two other documents that we were working on. And we worked to streamline it and condense it as well. So I will turn it over to Becky. Okay. Becky Wasserman, legislative council. So this is version three. It's dated September 9th of the racial equity proposal. Section one is titled Department of Corrections, racial equity and bias. So that was the and bias was added into the title plan and report. Subsection A is the findings. So there are some new, the findings have been changed around a little bit from what the version you saw the other day. So the first findings finding is that in subdivision one, the state's Department of Corrections is a department within the agency of human services. And then it states the purpose of the department and title 28 of developing and ministering a rehabilitative correctional program designed in part to render treatment to offenders with the goal of achieving their successful return and participation as citizens of the state and community, and also to foster their human dignity. Subdivision two states that DOC does not serve in a law enforcement capacity, but does play an important role in implementing the quality of an individual sentence and ability for a successful return to and participation in the community. So that finding was sort of a combination of two other findings that were in the previous draft. And then the last one is a new one. Subdivision three states the department's role is to also provide security and ensure racial and social equity to employees and to individuals under the custody of the commissioner. Any questions? So we can continue. Subsection B is the intent section. So there are three stated intents here. The first is to address systemic racism, bias, and diversity and inclusion to achieve equity for employees of the Department of Corrections and offenders under the custody of commissioner. And I believe one of the points I wanted to raise here was whether this needed to be reworded with respect to the including the term diversity and inclusion, because I think that is more specific to the employee context at DOC rather than the offenders in the correctional program. So I just wanted to highlight that of perhaps that's an area that needs a little more work. Subdivision two is to recruit, train, and retain a diverse and high quality workforce in the department. And then finally three is to enhance a human services approach to the state correctional program that will require DOC to undertake a thorough review and revision of its policies, administrative directives, and interim procedures and memos. Questions? Yeah, I have a question. The number one of subsection B, to address systemic racism, bias, does that assume that or what is meant by systemic racism and does that assume that it exists? What exactly is that? I think I think one more and I'm not sure what address means. I mean, if they're addressing it, are they investigating it or are they trying to correct it or what? So I think that goes to see where the way of addressing it is developing a strategy and long term plan. And I think there is, I guess, an assumption of systemic racism. And that is, I mean, I think that the testimony that speaks to the testimony that was heard the other day about just the system, the correction system and areas where there, I mean, I think that you heard testimony on that and both from both the perspective of the employees of the department as well as the folks who were in the incarcerated setting as well as outside of the incarcerated setting. So the two people we heard from? I think, I believe the committee heard more testimony than that. But yeah, I think that was all part of that testimony. We've heard from DOC and we've heard from all the advocates too. And all folks have said that. Said that there is systemic racism within DOC. Okay. They're trying to change the culture. It's all about the culture. Okay. So this is when Becky was emailing me while we were on the floor yesterday, trying to, she brought this issue up. If B1 should just pertain to the employees or also to the offenders. And I emailed her back and said, well, there's issues, offender to offender, as well as offender to staff and staff to offender. So I said, why don't we bring this before the committee and let the committee figure it out? So that's a flag that we need to resolve. Right. And I think the diversity and inclusion is with respect to DOC's employment practices. And wouldn't, and I don't know, I guess I would, I would hope to have an ad getter and experts be gone how that might apply to the offenders that are under the custody of the commissioner. Because I do think that that is a term of art with respect to employment practices. I think it's pretty clear in terms of staffing, but it's the offender piece for the diversity and inclusion. Butch. Yeah, I agree, Alice. That's a good great point because the DOC doesn't have much control over diversity and inclusion on their, on their, the inmates coming or the offenders coming to them. So that's a little squirrelly right there. And maybe we can fix that without having another intent, maybe just take this language and massage it a little bit to have a tent. But to Kurt's question too, I think because we're in, I think because we're in tent language, I think we have to take the bill as a whole. And I think once we get into, as Becky mentioned, once we get down into the plan and the scope of the plan, I think the what we're looking for about the racism piece will become more clear. And I do, yeah, and I, and I, and I, and I do think that the commissioner actually talked about racism in his testimony to us. So we don't know. We don't know what we don't know, but hopefully after this is over with and know something. So I know Heather is with us. Did you have something, Sarah? Did I see your hand? It's just really quick. I think, I think in B one, the either needs to be, there are two ideas in there. I think it would be most simply put to address systemic racism and bias in that within the Department of Corrections period. And then the diversity and inclusion that's language that we often see in a lot of this, these conversations around racial and social justice, but I don't think it's appropriate in this bullet point for the reasons that many of you have already pointed out. I think the diversity and inclusion has to do with recruit like recruitment and training. That that's that's the way I think that bullet one could just be a little bit could be simplified because it's confusing right now. What do you mean by diversity and inclusion of inmates? I mean, that's that's a bizarre concept. So I know Heather is with us. Do you want to weigh in on this at all? Or is what Sarah is suggesting makes sense? Yes, please and good morning, everyone. Heather Simons from Corrections. So just informally with regards to the intent, I wouldn't rule out diversity and inclusion with the offender population under facilities really work their communities and of themselves. And there are, you know, there are ways for us to think differently about the fact that this is where folks live. And they reside in different units. We're recognizing diversity as part of the makeup of the, you know, the demographic inside, not to mention. And I know this gets a little tricky in terms of the measurables, but inclusion oftentimes is it's a feeling, right? So if there I wouldn't, I don't think it's as far fetched as maybe it feels like right now to to keep the language. But again, I don't, I'm not super, I'm not super committed to it in terms of folks having a different way to outline it. But again, I don't, I didn't find it too much of a stretch to be honest, if that's helpful. Too much of a stretch to also include offenders in that diversity and inclusion, because you're coming saying that they live within their own within a community when they are incarcerated, they're living in their particular unit. That's right. Oh, I'm sorry. And I think if there are, you know, if it's a question of what does that mean in terms of what we do and how will we know if we're getting it right or changing it, we can measure, we can measure diversity and inclusion when we get into the business of data and best practices with how, with how we supervise inside. And I'm not, this doesn't need to just apply to the facilities, but I think that's sort of the easiest way to imagine it. I'm brainstorming a little bit right now because I didn't take notes on this section, but if we looked at activities like visiting and the community, the community members and family members and how they outreach to their loved ones who are incarcerated, what does that look like in terms of how we support those families past things like our constituency services office. Kids Apart programs that recognize that children are as impacted by incarcerated parents as the parents are themselves. So I think I, I think I don't find the language locking us in any, in any way. I understand that it might be a little bit too loose, but having not articulated perfectly, I'm pretty comfortable with it. So Sarah, you kind of froze on the screen. Am I unfrozen now? Yes. Did you have your hand up? I did. I just, I'm wondering if Becky, I don't disagree with what Heather's saying. I think it might make for purposes of clarity, it might make sense to add a third. Is it a third? How many intent or an additional fourth piece? Because I think it's, it's a little confusing when it's combined the way it is currently worded. And Becky is a terrific writer. So she might have some thoughts on that, but either that or that it could be included. Yeah. So one idea is that in the plan in the next section, in subsection C, it simply says, I think as you noted, Representative Profi, that it just kind of ends at in the Department of Correction. So it says she'll develop a strategy and long-term plan to address systemic racism bias and diversity inclusion in the Department of Correction. So that one idea could be to just, to just have that mirror what is in the plan section and just say to address systemic racism bias and diversity and inclusion in the Department of Correction. Or the other thing I was thinking about is to address systemic racism bias and diversity and inclusion in the operation, within the operations of the Department of Correction. Because then that gets into what Heather was saying, because there's a lot of like visitation or grievance procedure or whatever. Does that make sense, Heather? It does. And I honestly, I think language that, that messages to the people that we serve who are serving sentences that we're paying attention to that goes a long way as well. The spirit, the spirit of this. So instead of saying to achieve equity for employees of the Department and offenders under the custody of correct, of the commissioner, we delete that. And then it would read to address systemic racism bias and diversity and inclusion within the operations of the Department of Corrections. Does that encompass what we're looking for? I think so. Carl? Yeah, I'm not sure, I don't, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think this is, this is about people and the, the bullet point that we've got right now in B1 to achieve equity for employees of the Department of Corrections and offenders. And that's what we're looking to do. I, and I'm, I also think Sarah's, the diversity and inclusion part of that, I think kind of muddies the waters. I mean, this is about systemic racism and bias and, and, and I think taking those two pieces out, the diversity and inclusion, I mean, those are, those are, you know, a lack of diversity and a lack of inclusion as a result of systemic racism and bias. So in my mind, that's kind of says that already. If we're, if we're addressing systemic, systemic racism and bias, then we're addressing the issues of diversity and inclusion at the same time. So I, I think taking those two pieces out would make that a more clear sentence. And I think also it, it keeps, it really highlights that it's about people. If we say it's about operations and I'm not, I don't like that so much. Yeah. So the other option is that we keep the language as is in line 18, 19 and 20, where we highlight the equity for employees and offenders under the custody of the commissioner and delete the word diversity and inclusion. So it would read to address systemic racism, and bias to achieve equity for employees of the department of corrections and offenders under the custody of the commissioner. You keep both the employees and the offenders. So we're really clear that we're looking at addressing the systemic racism and bias within those two entities. So that's the another version. Carl. I think if, if, if we keep that, if we keep diversity and inclusion in there, we should say to achieve equity, diversity and inclusion. But having it on, having those on the same lines as, I mean, the goal is diversity and inclusion and getting rid of systemic racism. So it should be down with the achievements if we're going to keep those two parts down with the chief. Right. But I think the discussion was to take out the diversity and inclusion to take out those words. I think that makes it clearer. And I think it, you know, I mean, for the purposes of, I think it's really important that this be very, very clear. Well, I think taking them out makes it clear. It's the outcome is diversity and inclusion. But we're not, it's not what we're addressing. We're addressing systemic racism and bias. And the plan, if you go to the next page on line six, talks about the plan is to, to develop a strategy and a long-term plan to address the systemic racism, bias and diversity and inclusion. So this is the other way of approaching B1, that we take out the words diversity and inclusion and leave it the rest says is. So it would be, I mean, Kirk, nothing changes. I got you. I got you. Well, the title of this whole section is racial equity and bias. So it seems to me that what we're addressing is racial equity and bias. So for the intent, I would say it's to address racial equity and bias. So put racial equity instead of systemic racism. Yeah. Or change the title of the section. That's what I was going to say or change. I really do think that we are talking about addressing systemic racism. And maybe that's the better title for the section. Are there folks or at least adding it? I would almost rather just add it instead. I'm just thinking how folks who are in the trenches will look at this and feel that we're accusing them of systemic racism. And I don't think we are, but that I'm just thinking of the morale of the staff in DOC at this point, particularly with COVID and the overtime, that putting systemic racism in the title might be a flag for them. And they might really feel that we're attacking them because they're feeling so vulnerable with this point. I agree completely. But that's why my concern is with B1. And then I agree. And we also, I mean, they're saying they have the most diverse labor force in the state. And here we are accusing them of systemic racism. But I don't know. See, my problem is I don't have enough information. There's too many things that I would, before I say that we're dealing with systemic racism, I'd like to have more proof that it exists so that we could say, I mean, I know I gather it does and I suspect it does. But I haven't looked at enough, like we haven't looked at the grievances to see how many of them have to do with racism. We haven't talked to the Human Rights Commission. We haven't done a bunch of things, which to me would reinforce the idea that there is indeed systemic racism. So would you hand your hand up or not? Yeah, I did, Alice. Okay. We were, yesterday, when we were talking about this, we were very, very careful about how we use the term systemic racism. So, and I agree with you Alice, having that as a title is inflammatory. But if we don't say systemic racism, and I heard, I understand what you're driving at, and it's a deep dive, that's for sure. But we've had enough folks tell us that there is racism within DOC, and not just advocates, but actually people in positions of authority have said that. So I think we want to, I think we should call it what it is and not beat around the bush. Remembering this is a short-term request with limited information being gleaned so that we can move forward in January. Yeah, we'll do the deeper dive in January. We're not doing a deep dive right now. We're just setting the groundwork. We're setting the table right now. Yeah, we're setting the table. Heather, do you want to weigh in at all? I'm not asking you to unless you want to. Again, I think with regards to systemic racism or structural racism, we're not accusing people of it. It is what it is. It is embedded in a society. It's embedded in organizations or it's embedded in institutions and becomes part of the practices. I very much appreciate any sentiment around messaging to our workforce that they are racist. That's much different. I think it goes without saying at this point that the incarcerated experience in and of itself is based on a rich history of bias, period, whether it has to do with color or not. I think the writing's on the wall in terms of our needs organizationally and nationally to address the imbalance of power, whether it's staff to staff or staff and offenders. I really appreciate the time that the committee is taking with the language. I'm thinking this through in terms of your points around what do we say to the staff. If we look at it in terms of if we were training, we're identifying that there is a problem and that is systemic racism, bias, that the activity is to address systemic racism. If there's the need to make distinctions between the offender population and the workforce and using phrases like DOC operations, one area that we can always go to in terms of, again, the spirit is that restorative practices, if they're done right, should be bias-free. Restorative practices should facilitate successful reentry and be inclusive. Having a diverse workforce is our goal. Acknowledging what our demographic is in terms of brown and black employees and the fact that our department seems to have more than other departments, those are the facts. Part of our marketing and recruitment efforts around this whole plan should be around us getting comfortable with acknowledging what the reality is. If we're doing our job as leaders, then our workforce should understand that we are supporting them and this is part of doing that, although it does legitimately cause us fear. I know that doesn't help with the language, but I really do think that we're almost there. I think this is really good. So where are we folks? We have three things working here. Kurt put out that if we're using systemic racism in line 18, we should also include it in the title and there's pluses and minuses to that. There's also been the discussion of just taking out in line 18 diversity and inclusion and keep the rest of the language as it is. It addresses both employees and offenders. And then the third option is that you rewrite number one so that it reads to address systemic racism and bias within the operations of the department of corrections. And we'll draw back to that when it doesn't really deal with the people. It deals with the operations. I have a question then. I guess it would really help if I understood what is meant by systemic racism. I mean are we saying that the structure of DOC is somehow racist or what is structural racism? Or are we saying that the people within DOC, offenders, staff, everybody are racist or exhibiting racial bias? What exactly does systemic racism mean? Anyone want to weigh in on that? I think I asked that of one of our witnesses and she said that I should look into ask somebody else for a clear definition of that. And I did some Google searching trying to figure out what exactly is the definition of systemic racism. I couldn't come up with a good answer. Madam Chair, Sarah? So, Kurt, I hear your struggle with this concept. However, I got to say between the RDAF report from December 1st to the testimony with justice reinvestment to hearing, like I think back to what the Commissioner Baker said when we were dealing with this issue specifically. And I think we're not talking about, you know, we're talking about a system and kind of adjusting and retraining all of our thinking around systems. So when you say systems, Sarah, you're not referring to the DOC system. You're referring to our system as a culture, as people. It is. I mean, that's, and I think culture, you know, if we're going to get philosophical about it, I mean, it's about our society and culture, but there are systems and DOC, our corrections system is a system within our society. So I think what I'm hearing from Heather is that this is a welcome invitation to look at, like, how we, to look at our training and looking at policies and asking DOC to come back with a plan that addresses systemic racism. And, you know, I think I under I appreciate what people are saying that, you know, I don't want to get people on the defensive about about this, because I don't think we're with this language. It's not my intent to accuse people of being racist. I think what we've heard is that having a system and having a work environment that is aware of bias and can address its own bias and retraining people through professional development and education is better for the people who work there and the better for the people who are within the care of corrections. So I don't want to get anybody's backup, but I also don't want to be indirect about it either. So however, how we can strike a balance and as a committee, so that we're clear and also that it's this is not to be clear that this is also not an attack. This is about supporting our Department of Corrections. So when you when you say that in this case system, systemic racism means that there is racism within the system of our hiring, of our promotions, of our dealing with the people within? No. It's our society. It's our society. What in our culture? What parts of society? It's not systems in terms of how you think of how operations are running. Is systemic racism within our culture that that's the process of people thinking or how they view other folks? So we're addressing cultural. Yeah, I think what's confusing here is that you think of the corrections system and that same word is being used with systemic racism, but systemic racism isn't just about corrections. It's about sort of every facet of society. It's schools. It's workplaces. I mean, it's just every slate of branches, the executive branch. Yeah, so it's I think what may be confusing in the language for you is that that's a term that is is used to address sort of racism in society. Whereas we are talking specifically here. This language is focused on the correction system, but it's not it's not sort of like a personalized or it's not just a term being used just for the correction system. It's it's sort of recognizing and acknowledging that this is everywhere in society. But the language that we happen to be dealing with is is specific to the corrections program and DOC. I think I understand. But the trouble is that when when people say systemic racism, what we're trying to do is deal with that and or correct it or address it. And then we have to get down to specifics. So if there is so we can say, yes, there probably there is systemic racism within society. It's a cultural thing. So okay, we want to deal with that. We want to address something specific. So then we're saying is there racism in this particular portion of the system? Is there racism in the directives in the hiring practices in the whatever parts of the system in order when you when you keep it so general as just address systemic racism, it makes it so general so that we don't we're able to address it because we never get very specific on what has to be done is my problem. But but I think that's that but that's the where we're at right now with this language because if you look at the plan, that's where the Department of Corrections is going to develop a strategy and a long term plan on how to address the systemic racism bias diversity and inclusion. And then we lay out what the scope and evaluation is of that for them to come back to us in January. So we can do a deeper dive than to how do you really address the systemic racism? This is just it's butch said to set the table. It's not to do the deep dive and define everything. Does that make sense to the committee? I just wanted to add for Kurt's benefit because this is a cultural issue. The place to deal with it is with people. So it's in training, it's in recruitment, it's in hiring, it's in supervision, it's in you know ongoing continuing education. Those those are the places that we address it and we also address it through policy. So I think we and I think we've got that covered here. But I don't have any question that it's there. And I think that Sarah both Sarah and Becky did an excellent job of explaining what systemic racism is. So can we make a decision about B1 so we can move on? I like your second I like your second decision of taking diversity and inclusion out. That's my opinion. And keeping the rest in. Where are the other folks on this? I saw Sarah nod. I would make one match the title of the section one way or another. Do people think we should do that? I don't. Marcia says no. No. Mary says no. I think people are kind of saying keep it racial equity and bias is the title. Sorry, Kurt. Okay, anything else? So in B1, all we're doing is keeping the current language and taking out the diversity and inclusion. And then Becky's going to word Smith between racism and you got to put an end in there, I think. And then the rest of the intent section is okay. Let's move on to the plan, Becky. So subsection C sets out the plan that the commissioner is tasked to develop. So it's a strategy and long-term plan to address systemic racism bias and diversity and inclusion in the Department of Corrections. Subdivision one lays out the scope of the plan, which includes the Department's employment practices and supervision of persons under the custody of the commissioner, both in state facilities and in the field. So this is trying to focus in on what this long-term plan is going to be looking at. And it's sort of both of those pieces. A quick question is in the field something that enough people understand what that means as opposed to in community or something like that? Maybe a question for Heather. I think that's the term that's used within DOC. Yes. It's so it's easy for us to understand. But if I further understand the question, I'm not sure about everybody else. Community and field, I think, can be interchangeable. I think the word field was used because it's field offices. That's the term for your PMP offices. That's where I think it came from. Yeah. To make sure that we're just not looking at the folks who are incarcerated, but those folks who are under the jurisdiction of our field offices. Yes. Alice. Yeah. So I agree. I think we should change that in the field too in the community because we know that. It's kind of a term of art for us. But somebody else that doesn't know what in the field is, could misinterpret that. Would it be, oh, sorry. Okay. So the thinking is to change word field to community. Other folks, Sarah? I like that idea. Maybe under community supervision. Is that what we're, that's what we're talking about, right? Well, it says the provision of persons under the custody of the commissioner, both in-state facilities and in the community. Yeah. I think that's a good change, if that makes sense to Heather. Yes. If it's useful, you could add services, community services. I would keep it just community. I think that the public sees it as people under the custody of corrections and they're in the community. It's not so much services that folks are looking at, is my thinking. So where are we as a committee? Change field to community and just leave it community, not do community services. Mary, are you okay? I like just community. Same here. Okay. So we're going to change field to the community. Evaluation. So the evaluation and subdivision two, line 11. So the plan shall include a timeline and process for evaluating the following. First, it's the department hiring practices, training, supervision, professional development and competency standards to inform the basis of performance evaluation and the promotion of employees. Second, identification of the resources and funding needed to complete the plan, including upgraded technology, consultant support, and required data. And third is a list of stakeholders in a process for how the department will engage with the department employees, individuals under the custody of the commissioner and the broader community. So I just wanted to point out on line 19 that I think there may need to be some word change here because the need in language for the subdivision is evaluating and subdivision C speaks to a list of stakeholders. So I think, I don't know that they would be evaluating lists of stakeholders, but I just wanted to point that out if that is something that needs to be changed. Would you then just do, I see what you're saying there Becky? I had the same question about B. We're not evaluating the identification or actually identifying. So I think we can just say the plan shall include a timeline and process for the following for the following and take out evaluating and I think that might put evaluating at the beginning of A. Right. Evaluate the department's hiring process. Is that what you're suggesting? Yes. Or other folks who said, that was me. I was just thinking we might have to then put in front of the others, like in be identifying the resources and identifying a list of stakeholders. Yeah. Are people comfortable making all those changes? Just language, clarification, how it flows structurally? Doesn't change the intent. People are okay? So are folks still reading the evaluation piece? Are we okay with this piece? To A, B, and C? This is what they're going to come back to us in January. Yes. I think the thing that was removed, I think was good. I think you removed a few things and made this section clearer. Carl, you're okay with it? And then we have Mary Felicia and Linda. I think in rereading it a couple of times, I think I'm okay with it. I'm really not okay with this entire bill. So you all work it through. But as it stands right now, this isn't, for me, isn't the way to go. Yeah. You wanted more of a complete audit, right, Linda? It's not so much a complete, well, I thought that would, it wasn't so much the audit. First, it was the putting together the plan with DOC to have them understand what's needed when they are eventually auditing. So, but that wasn't my main concern. My main concern was the process. And what's coming in here is a little bit too theological for me. And I think that we're not the appropriate, the way it's being structured right now is not something that I could go with. I'm having problems with definitions, legal definitions, and I'm having problems with a lot of the words that are being used. So I can't really work on this format. Okay. Other folks? Could I, could I ask Linda Joy then with somewhat using this language or saying no, you couldn't use any of this language? How would you look to fix it? I know you had had some language and a proposal that you were thinking about how in looking at what we're presently dealing with, is there a way to fix the language as to how you're thinking? Well, for me, just if I had to work off of this, the only part that I would be able to survive with right now in this short period of time with the committee participants who are trying to put their hands on it would be that DOC will give us a plan of what they intend to do and then we will review that and work with them going forward. I mean, that's the extent of where I could go. I don't think they should be doing a self evaluation. I don't think we should be putting in terms in here that have very ambiguous definitions that can be taken by various advocates and stakeholders in the wrong way in various areas. And I think that you're not going to just change a culture by telling someone you need to change a culture. So I think we need to look at data and I think that's what DOC probably and most intelligently is going to do anyway, is look at their data. I think if we gave them more of a structure on how to look at the data, they would be more accomplished in providing successfully what they can actually achieve or can't achieve. And it's okay if you can't achieve something. But I don't think just coming up with vague definitions to get something out there is the way to go. But that's just my opinion. You're a full committee as well. And I'm part of it. It's just my opinion. So I applaud everybody's efforts. I just, you know, it's just the way I think in this particular area. I think it's dangerous. Okay. I think we all appreciate that. I go back to what Butch was saying. It's sort of just laying the table for us to do the deeper work with more testimony, more access once January comes around. Oh, I'm sorry. Don't go ahead. Linda. Yeah. And so to that, that's where I was saying, okay, you can stay with just, you know, the evaluation. They're going to have a plan, a timeline, what they're going to do. They're going to let us know what they're going to do. They're going to list the stakeholders and give us a report. And that's where the start should begin and until it comes back to us. And then help them get as much professional help and guidance or money or whatever they need to accomplish what the outcome is after we see how they are going to assess their various areas because they know best what to look at. And then they need guidance from there. And that's my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Kurt. Well, one thing representative mentioned that I was wondering about is when this plan is submitted, is this something that we approve or not? Or is this they submit a plan when we say, okay, that sounds good. Go ahead. No, the thinking is they will come back with recommendations and some of the recommendations they can do internally and some may need legislative change, statute change. Okay. Alice Mays. Yeah, I appreciate what Linda Joy is saying, actually. And I think I had some trouble with some of the language under the findings, the second and third paragraph. I felt it was a little, I understand the intention of putting it in there, but I felt like it was a bit superfluous to what we're trying to do. And I think that the idea where I think I might have a different way of looking at this than Linda Joy is that I think having specific things that we want to see in this plan and identifying them, I think is helpful to in clarifying what we're asking DOC to do. I didn't see this as a self-evaluation. I see this as a way to look at how they're going to develop recruitment, training, practices, and that they need to identify what kind of technology, data, research, outside consultants to do this work. And we heard loud and clear how people want to be engaged in that process, both employees and people who are families who are impacted individuals who are impacted. So I guess it's a long-winded way of saying that, I don't know how others feel about simplifying the findings section. What I'm hearing is people are feeling that some of the language is imprecise or subjective or, I'm not sure, but I really like the first section one in the findings, the first thing. It's really, to me, it's all there. It's really clear what DOC does. I think on the other parts of the finding, it was an attempt to incorporate testimony that we heard both from DOC and the advocates. I remember Heather saying pretty clearly that DOC's, there's an important role that DOC plays in implementing the quality of a person's sentence and the ability to reenter. And I think we wanted to encompass that thinking in the findings as well as we heard testimony that there's a feeling there that the culture of DOC could be security and coming from law enforcement because a lot of folks do come up through the ranks of law enforcement and military, so then they carry that into the correctional system. So I think part of the thinking was to really make clear that DOC is under the agency of Human Services and not under the agency of Department of Public Safety or law enforcement agency like it is in other states. In other states, DOC is under law enforcement. But here in Vermont, we have a conscientious effort that DOC is not under law enforcement. It's under the agency of Human Services. So that was the thinking around the second finding. The third finding is just the statement of making sure that when a person's under the custody of the commissioner that it's their role to provide security and to ensure racial and social equity just to be real clear about that in the findings. So that was the thinking behind putting in the findings. And I don't know if the committee wants to change that or I'm here, I'm seeing that people want to keep it the way it is before us. Yep, I have a comment then. I think the findings are okay. I do have one other thing that we'll back to the evaluations portion that if we're kind of changing A, B and C, I don't think that should be titled to evaluation in two because we're no longer right. Yeah, that's where I look to our drafts folks for that. But that whole thing needs to be kind of rearranged. Okay. Well, if I'm taking out the evaluation language at the start, then I can I can rework that. Okay. That's drafting. That's how you work at it drafting. Okay. So A, B and C would actually be subsections of scope. She'll figure that one out, Kurt. Okay. That's Becky's role. So D, the report, basically it's the commissioner comes back. So it's a report by January 15th on the strategy and the long term plan that is described in section small C. And then the timeline for the implementation and that comes back to our committee and Senate Committee on Judiciary. And that's where we can start doing the work and taking deeper testimony. I have a question then for Heather. Is this is this something that you see is doable in terms of the resources that you have and the time that you have and the people you have? Is this are we may this is too big a request or is it doable? I think it's big and I think it's doable. And that is the reality that that's the reality that we live in. And it's such a step in the right direction that we're just we will find ways to be resourceful. My focus really on this to the point around the plan, the recommendations, the timeline and to representative silence points around evaluation is that what you're really asking is for a needs assessment. What is happening? How are you measuring that? And what is it that you need to move forward? If that makes sense. And so in that regard, I do believe it's doable. And it will take away from your other resources that would that you think would might be more important. So we're all right with that as well. Good. Okay. Is that a question? Is that that's a statement or a question? That was kind of that was kind of half a question. It was just giving you an opportunity to say something if you wanted. But otherwise, I assume that that's the case because you said it's doable. I assume that it's not taking away from other resources you think are more important. So okay. That's not a question then. I was just just kind of comment. We are making some assumptions in this in this piece of legislation and it's I believe it's session law. We're not changing anything in the green books. But we are assuming that there is systemic racism. We have no proof in bias. We're assuming that and with what we're saying here. So this is a chance. You know, we may find that there is not systemic of Kate. Thanks Becky. We may find that there is there is not systemic racism. We may find that there's not bias. It might be implicit bias, but not another form of bias. So I think this this is a tool. This this we're looking at. I think many of myself included till about 10 minutes ago listening to the conversation. We're making some assumptions that we don't know are true. So if we ask for this plan report that or whatever, it will either confirm or deny or puts us on a path to confirm or confirm or deny those assumptions. And I think back to the unfortunate event in Newport a couple months ago. That was the first and I hate to say this, but I will because I am because that's who I am. It was the first thought out of everybody's mind that that race that some sort of racism was involved in that event. I don't know, but I don't know one way or the other. And frankly, and want to find out. So I think this piece of legislation may put us on the goal on the path to finding out what is really going on within the permanent corrections. That's my soul box. Yeah, this is this is the very first step to really looking into DOC and having them also look in and come back with a plan that if, yes, there is racial inequities, social inequities, racial bias, and how they can change the culture within DOC. It's not going to happen overnight on anyone's part, but at least this is a statement that can be put out there to say that not only are we as a legislative branch looking at law enforcement and other entities within the racial bias perspective, but also corrections as a part of that conversation. And it's the first step of accountability of what's going on. Right. So that that's the goal here. It's not to make those decisions. And it's not to say, yes, there is racial bias or social inequity. It's to say, let's acknowledge that if it is occurring, then let's put our heads together and put a plan in place to how to resolve it. Going forward. Well, I hate to say it, but then I question B1 on the first page where we're addressing it. I think we've made that decision, Kurt. Okay, but I mean, you're saying that decision because it's addressed in the plan. Yeah, but I understand. But you are saying two conflicting things. I think you're doing too deep a dive on this. I think this is just the first level of looking at it. I think you're getting into the weeds of this and that's not where we are. The weeds will come later. We haven't grown it long enough to have weeds. We don't have that many tomatoes yet. So we've made some changes to this draft. I don't know where Becky, I was really hoping we could get it voted out today because it's going to have to go to being presented to another committee. And I don't know where we are with this, Becky. What would be the best way we have until 1030? I can just go over the changes really quick and then I can maybe sign off for a minute, make them, if that works for everyone. I just want to make sure I have all of them. So in B1, I am deleting diversity and inclusion. In C1, I am replacing field with community. And in C2, I am reworking it to remove evaluating and changing the lead-in language for all of the subdivisions there as well as the title of that subdivision. Is that the changes that I'm making? Alice, on page 2, line 7, are we going to put in operations of the Department of Corrections? I thought the committee had decided not to do that because it was about the people and not the operations. Okay, that's fine. I just written it down and didn't house it off yet. Okay, thank you. Okay, so if it's okay, I might just sign off of Zoom for a moment and come back on. Okay, can I just make one more try at this? In B1, if we changed address to investigate, to me that would make a big difference. Instead of to address systemic racism, we said to investigate systemic racism. Blaming them and we got to investigate them. Excuse me? Then we're saying we're already blaming them because we're investigating. If we're addressing it, then we're looking at it. I saw it just the opposite. If we're saying we're addressing it, then we are assuming it exists. If we investigate, we're trying to find out if it exists and how much and how badly. So why don't we noodle this one a little bit? I think investigating may have some trigger words that they're going to do a deep investigation. I don't know. Let's noodle this. Let's have Becky sign off to the language change. Let us take a break like we normally would in a committee room just to get up and stretch our legs and let's come back in like 10 minutes or so. Does that work for folks? Okay. Will you pause this? Do we keep this? What are the logistics of that? I would just lock yourself out. Okay, just this video. Just stop your video. Let Phil figure it out. So do you want us to call back in or zoom back in, get off? I would not zoom back in. If you're on a phone, you might want to call back in, Mary, but if zooming, we just can block our video. We're just in a break. Okay, now the problem. Yeah, whatever works for you, but zooming, you can just block yourself. Yeah, yeah. Here. Is that showing up for everyone? Yes, it is. I just like being in our room so much better. I miss our little room. I was impressed, Alice, when we looked at the space study, it was confirmed our room is the smallest room in the building. Yeah, that surprises. I thought we were the same size as education across the way and general upstairs and I was surprised. Yeah, they're all up to four people. We're standing alone at three. Maybe we have bigger people. Careful. Maybe it's at seven foot or just two people. You know, one big difference that was, well, seven feet circle, I think, makes more sense than a six foot circle because you do have to take into consideration your body and your shoulders. Sure, sure. So you do have to take, you don't think about that, but you have to take that in consideration. Not just the headshot. Yeah, unless you take the face with somebody, you know, if your face to face with somebody out in a sidewalk is a little different than if you're standing side by side. I find that a little bit, I've been going to the local diner or whatever, people forget that if you're face to face, they're pretty good about six feet, but not back to back or side to side. I find people are pretty conscientious about face to face, but other directions, people aren't, we're not aware to think that way. No, we're not. And it's just the real adjustment on how we function. So are we all back here? I don't have the full screen because I have the language up before me. Yes, we are. Okay, participants and you'll see it. Yep. Yeah, but then it blocks everything out. I can't see. I can't see the document. Has that been posted to our website, our web page? Yep. It has this. That may be the best way for me to look at it. Actually, what's up on your screen has not yet been posted, but Becky will explain a very minor change and then I'm going to post it as soon as the meeting is over. Okay. Okay. I just had a big truck go by. We got some paving going on somewhere up the road. Okay, let's come back together. I think we're all here. And I'll turn it over. I'll turn it over to Becky here. Go through Heather's back with us. Okay. Becky Wasserman, legislative council. So I've made a few changes to the draft based on the committee's comments. And this is version four. So I will just go through quickly where there changes from the previous draft. So looking in subsection A subdivision A3 on line 15, this is a change I just made throughout the document because I noticed there was an inconsistency. I changed all the references to those who are under the custody of the commissioner, to persons under the custody of commissioner because I noticed that it was referred to differently in the draft. So that's just like a global change I've made. In some cases it was individuals under the custody or offenders under the custody. So throughout I've made this change to persons under the custody. Subsection, sorry, are there any questions about that? Subsection B in subdivision one on line 18, I removed diversity and inclusion. So the intent here is to address systemic racism and bias and that diversity and inclusion has been struck out. I have a question comment on that. I'm wondering whether the after bias, whether that should be, that to achieve equity for him should be a separate item. In other words, number two. I think we leave it to our draftsperson to do some of this. I mean, what you're thinking she just did it. I'm because it's two different things to address or what I would say research actually, systemic racism and bias and then two, to achieve equity for employees. Well, I think that there are different types of equity. So this drafts must be, I mean, of course we can, the committee can choose to address whatever types of equity. It's focused on racial equity and bias. I see what you mean. Then then basis to achieve racial and equity, racial and so whatever the other word was equity. It just to achieve equity doesn't sound right there because we are trying to achieve racial and social equity. I can add in racial and social equity just to clarify that further. Why don't you do that, Becky? I gather nobody likes the idea of changing address to something like research, systemic racism. I'm not picking up a whole lot of support for that. I would leave it addressed. That's what I'm picking up from committee members here. So Becky, you just changed that to address systemic racism and bias to achieve racial and social equity for employees and persons under the responsibility of the commissioner. I'm just going to note to fill not to post what I just sent you. So I'll resend this to you. Okay. The next change is in C1 on the next page on line 10. I struck out the word field and replaced it with community. So it is the scope is looking at the supervision of persons under the custody of the commissioner, both in state facilities and in the community. And then sort of in general with subsection C, I've reorganized it a little because I removed the evaluating in subdivision two. And I just removed the reader assistance titles and subdivision one and two. I took out scope and I took out plan. And so subdivision one doesn't have scope anymore as the reader assistance title. It just says the scope of the plan shall address the department's employment practices and supervision of persons under the custody of the commissioner, both in state facilities and in the community. And then subdivision two, there's also no reader assistance there. And it just says the plan shall include a timeline and process for evaluating, sorry, process for the following. I removed evaluating. And then in the subdivisions, I've added subdivision a is evaluating the department hiring practices. Subdivision B is identifying the resources and funding needed to complete the plan. And then subdivision C is identifying a list of stakeholders. So it doesn't change any of the intent. It just lays it out differently in terms of flowing with the language. Right. And those were the only changes on this draft. We kept the report the same. No changes to subsection D. Okay. On page two under C, I think you were talked about changing the words of individuals to persons. And it looks like it still, it needs to be changed to persons under the custody of the commissioner. Thank you. Good catch. Anything else on the committee? Do I dare ask? Do I dare ask? Yeah, butch. I just got to think about this just for a few seconds. Okay. Okay, seconds up. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Marcia. In my, I don't know if it's concern. Just maybe a question to the committee is under the scope. We're looking at employment practices and supervisions of persons in the timeline, resources, stakeholders, that's fine. We heard, we haven't talked about and maybe we don't need to inmate on inmate. Or we're assuming that it's all, I'm sorry, Alice. We're assuming that it's all employee on inmate or employee to employee. We haven't talked about inmate to inmate. Do we need to or will that automatically flow out of the plan? Well, if you do anything with inmate on inmate, it wouldn't, you don't have to have a separate section of deals specifically with state facilities because you don't have that in a community. Number one, plan with the scope of the plan would address the department's employment practices. I hate to bring this up for the 12th hour, but just something that just popped up. Well, we did, we are thinking about that back in the intent language on number one. That's what we are thinking on number one. I'm fine if everybody else is fine. I'm okay. I just was just a question and a random thought. Well, you could say employment practices, supervision and interactions of persons under the custody. Maybe, but you know, I could be a bridge too far here too. I'm willing to accept that. So the plan would develop a strategy and long-term plan to address systemic racism bias and diversity and inclusion in the department of corrections. That's great. But then we get into the scope. By naming the scope stuff in the scope, do we limit it to that? I mean, that is one part of the picture is inmate behavior towards other inmates. Can we just add a sentence there to the scope of the plan? I don't know. I don't want to blow the whole thing up. I don't either. We're one of the other committee members thinking here. Is there a problem with adding hand interactions? I'm going to reach out to Heather. Is Heather on here still? I hate to put you in the spot light here, but we have spoken about inmate on inmate behavior and that is part of our intent language as well. Yes. So I don't think it's problematic at the 11th hour. I also don't think that there needs to be any language added. If we are addressing the department of corrections, operations and best practices, that would include how we see the functioning of the department and the facilities as a community, which would mean any work we do around social and racial equity, whether it's new or additional, would be in education, in due process, classification, that is the business of corrections. I do understand what the concerns are in terms of the need to say inmate on inmate, but inmate on inmate, we're talking about behavior. So pretty much everything we do does center around inmate behavior. So if we're doing what we need to do, it would be embedded in everything else. From my perspective, I don't think we need additional language. Well, Heather, you don't think that the language you put in, the directive we're putting in under the scope limits you to those specific things. You think it'll naturally flow into inmate on inmate and inmate on staff? Yes. Okay. Because it's dealing with supervision of persons under the custody of the commissioner? Yes. I think it's supervision. I think that anytime you refer to corrections and operations, that's really what it that that encompasses all of it anyway. I also think that if there are specific areas that we identify between now and January, those will get fleshed out. I'm standing down, Allison. Okay. I think that's a good thought, Heather. Thank you. I'm not seeing or hearing any pushback from you standing down. I think, Heather, we are concerned. I just want to voice this so we are concerned about inmate on inmate behavior. Right. So, for example, all of the race data that we collect is going to give us some indication about what that behavior is, right? So, if there are disciplinary reports, any kind of sanctions or accountability or if there are distinctions between classification status, that it's going to be much more easily measured and we'll be able to identify what we mean when we say inmate on inmate behavior. So, are we comfortable with where what the language says now? Which did back down? Okay. Well, I didn't back down, but I accepted Heather's explanation. Backing down Alice is not my style. No. Sorry. I hate to ask this, but anything else before we get ready to take a vote here? I'm not seeing anything or hearing anything. So, I would entertain. What draft number are we under here? Five? Four. Well, there's some changes. This is still draft four. So, I can send it to Phil as draft four since it's just replacing. Since we made some changes while this has been up and I think he's just going to replace what was posted. Yeah. So, it's still draft four. I can change it to draft five if you'd like. Whatever works for drafting for you folks. I think draft four is okay. Okay. So, I would entertain a motion to support the language in draft four. So moved. Seconded. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. We approve the language in draft four with thinking that this will be submitted to another committee, either government operations or has to be added on to either S119 or S124. That hasn't been decided yet. So, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not, Sarah, please call the roll. Representative Taylor. Yes. Representative Sullivan. No. Representative Morrissey. Yeah. Representative Martel. Yes. Representative Leffler. Yes. Representative Kruinsky. Absent. Representative Demro. Yes. Representative Coffee. Yes. Representative McKayg. Yes. Representative Shaw. Yes. Representative Emmons. Yes. Okay. So, that's nine one one. Nine one one. Good job. Thank you. Good thing. Good thing. This isn't tomorrow. Why? Come out with a vote nine one one. Oh, God, is tomorrow the 11th? Yeah. So, Alice, Madam Chair. Yeah. What is the process? What do you want me to do with this action form? Should I send it to Phil? It's a slightly different. What I would do is just send it to Phil at this point, and then we'll have a clean. I think you froze. You froze that ballot. Yeah. Now we can see you. You're twinging. You're twinging. So, you froze when you said we'll have a clean version. Yeah. Is that better? Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. I'll send it to Phil. Yeah. Send it to Phil. And then when we have a clean version, I'll have some conversations to see which bill to place it on either S-119 or S-124. I'm not breaking up anymore, am I? No, we can hear you now. Okay. Because I'm not sure. I know that they're hoping next week to get those one or two of those bills out. That's beyond my pay grade. So, I'll just see where it ends up going. But at least, at least we got it done. And then the rest is up to other folks. The office is still taking testimony on S-124. Yeah. And I think Judiciary is on S-119 still, isn't it? No, I don't want to look. Let me look. S-119 is the use of force, right? And S-124 is the training council, right? S-124 is the whole redo of all police training in Vermont, yeah. Which I have a keen interest in. Because of the academy. Yeah. And then S-119 is the use of force. S-119 was 1030 tomorrow. Yeah. Okay. So, I'll connect with those respective chairs and find out where's the best place and timing for this to go. And hopefully those committees will, whatever committee, whatever bill which goes on in that particular committee, hopefully they'll accept the language. That's the next step. I'll ask a funky question. And I'm looking through this. And I mean, S-119, they're making huge changes to the Senate version. And I know S-124, they are. I'm wondering if they don't pass it out of their committees in the next couple of days. Which one is more likely to make it to our floor? I don't know. Which everyone is more likely is probably where our language will show up. Yeah. I'm curious if S-124 is going to make it to the floor. And S-124 is the one with the training? The training, a big swing in training and other activities within law enforcement. Yeah. And that's up in GOV-OPS, correct? That's in GOV-OPS, yeah. And S-119 is the use of force in law enforcement and that's in judiciary. I think that might stand a better chance. See, those are conversations that are beyond us. I know. And we may have a better direction tomorrow after those committees have had some testimony. So, at this point, for us, our work is complete. Yay. Unless you change your mind. No, I'm not going to change my mind. Unless something else comes up that I don't anticipate. But so for tomorrow's morning's meeting, we do not need to meet. And we were scheduled for two mornings next week. And at this point, I do not see a need to meet next week. That could all change in the last minute. But at this point, I do not see us needing to meet for the remainder of this. And that will free you up, Phil, because you're still working with House Ed. Yes. So that will free you up. So our work for the committee is complete. Feels good, doesn't it? God, everybody looks so exhausted. We're only going to see each other in a few hours on the floor. That's different because you don't see each other close. I know. I know. But I want to thank you all for the work that you've done. Not only just in the past few days in this little special session, which has been very different for all of us, but also the work that we did starting in January and then have things really changed in March. And we as a committee really have done some really good work and have come out with real solid legislation and good votes that I think really plays, that really goes well for our whole legislature. And I want to thank each and every one of you individually for all that you've contributed. Sometimes it's frustrating. We understand that. But we're a good team and we're a good committee. And I want you all to remember that and that we do respect each other as individuals and as legislators. And that's really important. And we have a thank you. Thank you. Thank you for putting up with us for the past week. Yes, my pleasure. Thank you. So on that note, Rebecca, it was like taking all of us to kindergarten class. Yes, it was. And poor Heather had to sit through this. And thank you, Heather, for all your work. Not at all. And congratulations on your new position moving forward. And thank you. And thank you to the committee and to you for supporting a position and all your thoughtfulness on this work. This is this is a very big deal to us. And for some of us who've been in for a long time, a big wish that we've had. So it's an extraordinarily meaningful and not without a lot of folks behind me and with me with an enormous amount of gratitude to you and the committee. Thank you again. I appreciate you for putting us. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, boy. January seems so long ago, doesn't it? And where we are now. Always, yeah. Yeah. So thank you all. We're going to sign off of YouTube here. And I want to thank folks who have been listening in and following our work. And we appreciate everyone. And we'll see you come January.