 Well, let's get going then. Good evening. Welcome to the 25th of October meeting of the working group, Act 65 working group of the Racial Disparities Advisory Panel. Let's begin with introductions. Robin, why don't you go first? Good evening. Robin. That was a little broken up. Oh, is this any better? Oh, that's much better. Okay, yeah, I could have just been hoarse. Prior to that, there was a dog involved. Yeah, Robin from Crime Research Group and the dog's name is Tessie. Great. Thank you. Welcome to both of you. Abigail Crocker. Hi, I'm Abby Crocker. I'm from the University of Vermont and the National Center on Restorative Justice. Great. Susanna. Hi, I'm Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Directive for the State. Great. Ian. Hi, Ian Morris, Aetons, no taker. Great. Thank you. Karen. Hi, everyone. Karen Gannett from Crime Research Group. Representative Christie. Kevin Coach Christie from Hartford, Vermont. Thank you. Evan. Evan Meenan from the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Good evening. Great. Elizabeth. Elizabeth Morris from the Department for Children and Families. And I, oh my God, and here's someone who is a guest and I, Mark, is that you? I'm blind tonight. No? Oh, dear Lord. All right. Let me get back. Representative Lalonde. Martin Lalonde and a representative from South Burlington on the House Judiciary Committee. Great. Thank you. Sam, I'm sorry. I'm probably misreading it, but these words are very small, and I left my glasses at home. You are a guest. Welcome. Oh, I feel, can anyone else read that? To me, it looks like Saima. Saima? Okay. I mean, I can only see an S. Yeah. We are really regretting butchering your name, and it's my fault because I don't have my readers. Saima? S-A-I-M-A. Got it. Thank you. I'm very sorry. I can't see a thing. Julio. Yes. I just joined. Yes. Good evening. Introduce yourself, please. Okay. I missed that part because I just logged on. So I just got it. Hi. I'm Julio Thompson. I'm an Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Attorney General's Civil Rights Unit. Thank you. And I'm responsible for some now. Rebecca. Rebecca Turner from the Officer Defender General. Thank you. And Monica. Hi, everyone. I'm Monica Weber. I'm with the Department of Corrections, and I'm going to turn my camera off briefly to do something else, but I'll be paying attention. Okay. Anyone that I have forgotten or just unforgivably butchered, please speak up now. Okay. Great. This evening, the representatives have a couple of remarks that they would like to start the meeting with, and so without any more preamble, I'm going to turn the meeting over to the two of them to speak with us, representatives, floor jers. I guess I will start because Coach pointed to me and always followed his lead, including being told to lead. Any event. So this is more, it's kind of like a managing of expectations somewhat on one of the decisions that were put before the RDAP that I understand completely that you're not going to be able to get to, and that is where the bureau should be stood up, where it should be located. And Coach and Eitan and I have talked about this a bit, and I believe we have a way forward, but I just want to give a little bit of background. So if we were to present to the Government Operations Committee, which is the committee that really needs to weigh in on this, in creating an entity within state government, they have primary jurisdiction. There are parts that judiciary will definitely handle, but they will be a very key part of this. If we put to them, well, here are a choice of three different locations that you could put this, and you figure it out, Gov Ops, that would most likely tank this for next year. And the reason for that is that they're going to have somewhat limited capacity. They are going to be dealing with redistricting, which happens every 10 years, and takes significant time and effort from that particular committee. And they also have some other very large issues that they're going to be taking, addressing, such as pensions as well falls within that committee. So what we really want to try to do, and that's when I say we, that's Representative Christie and I, we want to have this, the terminology is very technical terminology pre-baked as much as possible when it arrives at the government operations committee. And that means that Coach and I are going to make our decision of, given the input that you all have given us, of where we think this entity should be placed, and really looking at it out of a really political expediency, where can we put this that we can have the best chance of getting this through next year, next session. We don't work in perfection in the legislature. You may have all noticed that already, frankly. But we feel that if a lot of the work that you're doing on the details that our DAP is doing on the details is great work, and we want to see that move forward. And I think the best way to have that move forward is that we figure we actually have in a bill where we think this should be located and in the entity that we think will allow us the best chance to get it through. And down the road, you know, next biennium, if we want to tweak this, that frequently happens and we can improve it then if necessary. So where we're probably going to be landing, if we haven't fully landed there already, is to suggest that it that it goes to the director of racial equity in that office or potentially the agency of digital services. But I think you all have suggested the director of racial equity, although I believe making it into a department, which that would also be a much heavier lift. So we would we would think of just putting it under the auspices of the director. So we would love to have input on that possibly if you are able to give that kind of can give support or input on such a decision in your ultimate report. But I don't think it's critical that you do so. I think it's more critical that you are getting this other great work done. But we did want to share that just as far as managing expectations, because we don't want all of a sudden folks to think that, oh, well, we've ignored what our DAPA said. Well, we're not because you haven't said anything necessarily on that particular issue, except some options. And but it really, I think we need to we need to put something in the bill that we're going to get introduced as far as where this is going to go. It makes most sense that it goes in the Racial Equity Director's Office. So that's kind of where we are. I'm happy to answer questions, but I will kind of turn it over to Representative Christie, if he has anything to add. Well, not to be redundant. I think Martin pretty much summed up the thinking. I know in a lot of the discussions that we had when we were talking about doing this work, I went back to some of the notes from earlier RDAP meetings and recommendations around data and the housing of data. And there seemed to be a fairly high leaning towards the Office of Racial Equity. And just from a historical perspective, when the office was originally created in its enacting legislation, prior to striking that particular language, that's where it was going to be. And actually, I think there's a subset of information still in the enacting legislation that talks to data specifics around a number of the areas that we're referring to, but a more global perspective around data. So anyways, that's the thinking. Moving things in the legislature, like Martin said at the beginning, it isn't a perfect science. And sometimes it's a question of what's the path of least resistance to get things started to be very candid. But I really, really appreciate all of the work and the great thought that's gone into this, because that's what makes it work at the end of the day. So kudos to RDAP and the working group. And thank you. Do people have questions or comments that they want to? I can imagine a lot, actually. Evan. I figured I might as well go first. But I will go first by saying that I do appreciate the sort of that preliminary feedback and managing our expectations. I do think that that's helpful information to have heading into the session. And I hope that I have done an okay job of expressing the position that all three of the entities that we have suggested can likely get this work done successfully. At least that's what I would anticipate expressing on behalf of the department. But I would likely also just like to take a minute to respond briefly to the idea that if the office of the director of racial equity is assigned this task, the idea that it wouldn't be, that it might not be possible to elevate that office to a department. And I do appreciate that in the realities of the legislative session. But I would ask that at a minimum, if that is the home and it's not possible to elevate it to a department level position, please keep in mind the staffing resources that we've identified because this is potentially a very big task. And as I think Representative Christie already identified, the office of the director of racial equity already has some data collection responsibilities assigned to it. But I imagine those responsibilities would be very difficult to fulfill without some additional personnel and resources. And so I would just like you to please keep that in mind as you head into the session and have deliberations on this topic and whatever recommendations our DAP comes out with. Yeah, just I think certainly our intention is not to have this be a so-called unfunded mandate foisted on the office that we're looking at the recommendations of what kind of resources are needed for this, but just where do we place those resources? So I appreciate that input though. Thanks, Evan. And just one other piece to this. I'll call it a parallel universe in the sense that there is existing legislation right now that talks about creating or moving the office of racial equity into its own universe, so to speak, or department status. And so and that's been that's been ongoing because that was part of the original legislation that it would only be working from the administration, but it would be totally separate. And that was part of the reason that the bill got vetoed initially. And we had to you know come back and resolve the veto by leaving it in the administration unencumbered, so to speak. So there's that that little that not little that part of the lift that's part of the discussion as well. Anyone else? Rebecca? I'm absorbing your messaging of representatives tonight and some clarification questions come to mind. I'm hearing that it's a heavy lift to change much. Any is the question of the current office of the director of racial equity? I guess that's the question. Yes, I'm not I'm not sure I understand the question. If you mean I think the idea would be the work that's being done on the makeup of the of the bureau and what its charge is and the resources towards it and all the other details are all packaged together. And it is just that it's housed in the director's office in the office of racial equity. So I guess that I'm not sure if that answers the question. Maybe I've not been as in tune to why the concept that it has to be a department at this point. I mean it'd be preferable. But I think the main point is to get all the is to get the necessary resources as set forth by the RDAB that we're going to be seen in the report and finding the place that we can put it that we have the highest likelihood of success of actually getting it through and also makes a lot of sense given what also what represent Christi has been saying about about the origin of that office. I'm not sure if I'm really addressing your question Rebecca. And you are and I'll give you so I should have provided a little more context. There has been considerable discussion and concern amongst the members of the subcommittee as to the placement that that you're proposing now within the director of racial equity its office. And I know we're calling it office but it's it's a place of one and I hear you talking about expanding it. The concerns however have been not that it's the an obvious fit because of the mandate itself of addressing racism. I mean that is clear because it's clear that that is an obvious seeming fit along with Human Rights Commission and along similar lines. But at the top most concern and this is where the concerns of that director come out is is ensuring that that this data entity have independence is insulated from political partisanship that it be protected to ensure the integrity of its work with independence so that we can trust the information and work that that that entity produces. And so the concern is is that to have that embedded within the agency of administration we don't have those kinds of assurances. So when I ask about whether or not there is no ability to provide some additional protections to insulate that office from political pressures. Again Representative Christie you're talking about sort of the precursor and what happened post veto and and sort of the movement to pull it out of the agency administration and make it a standalone office and of itself would be fantastic right a dedicated office of racial equity for the state and the executive branch. But again that's back to the question to you which is what is because to me that is the key how you know my my instinct and and of course and go back and consult with the defendant general but her primary concern is that in coming up with this data entity that it have the integrity and impartiality and not be seen as a political tool to advance a certain agenda. Otherwise we may as well perhaps it's better to wait until we have that ability or support to do it right the first time. And I worry that if we create something to get it started we entrench it in a certain direction. So those are those are my concerns just out of the gate. You're on mute. Sorry about that. I guess I'll just share as we all know a lot of legislative action doesn't start out the way we hope that it would start but it's a question of being resolute you know in continuing the work you know we have not stopped one moment in being very clear and you notice that my tone has changed a little bit as far as emphasizing you know the fact that we will continue to push you know for the independence of that you know of that office and you know sometimes it's a question of you know when do you have enough votes to really make it happen you know if and I'll be specific a veto proof majority could very well put us in a position when the bill hits that cycle to move it forward and and and that's you know that's the rest of those the story to be very candid you know with Rebecca because we share we share that same concern you know that's why we started the conversation that way and we really haven't given up that fight because we consider it a fight you know and it's one worth continuing the effort so your point is very well taken and we would hope that at least as long as we have the intestinal fortitude to keep up the the fight we will continue to work in that direction thank you okay Rebecca do you have a follow-up or anything that you want or no I just want to share the feeling of enormous pressure to hold up the community members positions here and they're not present on this call I don't think I see any here but just to stress again that from our prior reports the dominant theme that we believe should be the guiding principle to any new data entity to be different to be useful to make sure that the people who are the data behind the you know the reporting that they're protected that it's not to be used as a sword against them after all of this has been one of of ensuring independence and and I know we've unpacked that further throughout the summer what that means right it would not not a stand alone entity not selling and we were working towards not necessarily as as you've heard we haven't been able to commit to a single entity but we have seemingly come around to seem like perhaps a consensus as to as to the underlying principles and certainly those those were it and so I wonder what your messaging leaves us in terms of how we should go forward with recommendations because I can't help but feel like it is asking us to compromise the very heart of it but perhaps I'm here I'm welcome I want to you know others to share their thoughts on this okay I have one coming from a variety of directions I was in a quote unquote I guess it was called the discussion although it was being taped on YouTube with a couple of legislators who said that they could not vote for this body because it was simply about the criminal and juvenile justice systems when there is a need in their view and and you've many of us to have data from education from housing from welfare from any number of government entities um there were a fair number of them and um and some of them on the relevant committee co-everly there have been discussions here about well subsequently really there have been discussions here about whether it is about social justice or it's about racial justice alone the idea of the scalability of the uh proposed entity was to allow for it to be about social justice in general so that it would be possible to look at gender it would be possible to look at sexual orientation all these categories that certainly exist that we don't necessarily have data for um I certainly know that there has been a lot of feeling from many quarters that the office of the executive director of racial equity is really too narrow and that if you take the word racial out it gets more to sort of what everyone's hope maybe utopian is if in fact this becomes a uh organ I guess in the office of the executive director of racial equity are we then just entrenching that we are going to call it racial equity and that's that because you're going to have a fight with some of your colleagues representatives and um I have to say there's not agreement here I mean there are some people who are for it I know Sheila is not for calling it social justice she really wants it to be about race I really don't um so there's not agreement um but I'm just curious as to whether this placement then affects that uh hope and terminology you want to give that a shot uh Martin I I have a thought but why don't you go ahead and start no go ahead coach well just thinking in terms of you know naming you know we had the same um situation when we uh formulated uh the social equity caucus uh and you know we we've been able to approach a lot of discussions that affect for monitors disenfranchised for monitors across the spectrum um you know we worked without right for a month to get their uh money back into the budget uh and accomplished that uh a number you know I won't you know delineate the list but a number of the activities that speak exactly to what you were talking about and I know it's kind of utopian but at the same you know at the same sense if we we're not a monolith you know and and and that's what we run into so many times with colleagues allies and friends doing this work you know there there are those differences of opinion I think if we can come to uh a consensus so to speak as to a good uh jumping off point that protects those those disenfranchised for monitors that could very easily become even stronger allies then that's a good thing you know so so my personal feeling would be uh utilizing you know the social uh justice you know peace even though it's housed in the office of of racial equity is uh is a factor of let's say us you know continuing to put the um not pressure but being uh voices for protecting you know as many for monitors as possible you know so I I guess that's you know my thinking initially with what you were sharing okay thank you other voices Jeff and it is good to see you sir thank you um I think that uh there's a difference here that I'm seeing and I wouldn't be dissuaded of it of the difference between sharing the data and being co-opted to a larger tent which in the history of my 70 some odd years has happened repeatedly over and over again there's nothing to exclude anybody from looking at data as we compile it that's not the name of the committee that I became a member of and I've seen this happen from the beginning of my life come into the big tent come into the big tent and you know who gets left out in the end in the big tent take a guess take from Carrie Nielsen and nation in the vote right on up and somebody's going to have to dissuade me of that because I don't buy it I don't buy it I don't buy it that we don't that we can't share the data that we collect that we can't join other people on our own but um I've seen it too much I've seen it too much from the battles in the civil rights movement till all of a sudden it became anti-war and it was women rights and everything and everybody got everything except for the black folks and the Hispanic folks and I know I sound like a radical but I I've seen the movie and I'm totally against the movie okay thank you anyone else Rebecca one of the things that I I have been thinking about just how could we legislate how could there be draft legislation to insulate um the work of the data entity wherever it's housed um and we've we started looking you know I've been pulled in uh some legislation we we work through it um you know in there is sort of highlighted the selection process the selection process of and I think in this case it would translate to the permanent staff for instance that we're proposing who selects the permanent staff who can hire who can hire who can fire right um as I understand the current setup of the director of racial equities uh it's a position that you serve at the pleasure of the governor so could there be if that were to be the place where this is headed for real for most likely chance of passing out a session this year it's coming year would there be the ability to change that to insulate it to ensure that for instance the selection process include the input from and then pull in from what we think and and what Jeff was just was talking about the direct voices of people who've been outside and excluded from the tent right so you know not just for the input of the selection process of people color people with lived experiences we've talked about that a lot right um there is at least in the public defender statute uh the the example of requiring that not just that the governor you know selects the defender general but uh also with the uh I think what's the language acceptance consent of the senate right again sort of a build-in check so we have that sort of process I wonder if that's a possibility to change to insulate there is also um sort of a protection of of independence to to um how to fund how to contract right how to choose appropriate services outside of the entity again consistent with uh the bound the budget set by the general assembly grade consistent with certain standards again looking to I was just rereading the public defender statute and how that has built in a lot of of of insulating language again these are questions back at you which we're sort of I'm curious to hear your input in terms of those types of of ways we can strengthen the office let's assume you know what you're talking about is the direction this is headed but is is there political will to do something like that I mean I I don't have any answers right off the top of my head of what would work but we can certainly work with our legislative council to see what might be done to as you say insulate the office and see what kind of ideas and we can look at the defender general statute and look at some other ideas as well I mean I'm not opposed to trying to put something in there to assure uh independence so happy to look at that I just don't know what that would look like at this point just just a quick comment um you know we have changed things in a very short period of time if you look at the presence actually of Susana's office in our depth you know we we changed that language so that she's here formally we also added additional members to our depth that were selected by that office so I guess I'm not afraid you know to try to navigate that water and possibly one of the things that we might uh you know look towards uh are those those statutory changes that make sense that give us that protection and and what for example the point that you brought up about the consent of the senate we need to go back and take a look at that you know that language and where it could be inserted but that's an amendable you know piece you know to the legislation too you know it's it's chipping away at it you know I I know it's it's not you know the immediate uh piece or it might not be the the total piece that we're looking at for independence but we're sending a clear signal that we're building uh a ladder to get to it because as I said before we're not going to stop trying to separate that but it'll it'll probably happen incrementally you know so anyways Evan um so I was just sort of thinking about where we might go from here and what the what the ramifications of this the expectation management that we now have might be on our final report and um I thought it would be well I thought I should just throw out there that I I while I while I do appreciate the expectation management as previously stated and still think all those stand by all those statements I thought I would add that I still think the direction that we were headed in the report is the is the appropriate direction um you know I I still think that it's it's reasonable for for this group based on the information that we've been able to obtain and discuss to recommend various homes for this entity so that we can do things like flag the need for independence that Rebecca correctly mentioned we talked about multiple times and then and then also I think that another aspect of the direction that we're heading in is still beneficial I mean we were given the specific charge to address a bureau of racial justice statistics now we did talk about scope and the ability to grow and expand and I do think it's important to note those things in our report but we were still tasked with just a an entity that that was specific to racial justice statistics so I think it's okay to to answer the immediate question before us which was focused on racial disparities while noting that we shouldn't we shouldn't ignore the fact that we might have similar questions related to other demographics in the future and there should be capacity to grow if that need arises so I still feel pretty good about the work that we've done and the direction that we're heading haven't we done that yeah exactly that's why I think we're we're doing good yeah well we'll see that's the thing we're not talking about not um or or let's say not changing any of your recommendations okay we're we're just sharing a pathway so to speak because one of the things that will happen hopefully god willing is that we will be taking testimony you know from you know our DAP and our DAP members you know as to their positions you know around you know the whole conceptual idea and and it's not like you know you know jeffrey's gonna have a chance to share you know basically with the committee of jurisdiction you know his thoughts and feelings and his concerns you know rebecca will uh aton you know evan you know the folks that have been directly involved in this in this process will have that opportunity to share and then like we have to do in all of our policy work it's a question of filtering you know and and listening and trying to come up with something that you know we'll you know get across the finish line so to speak malika thanks aton and um yeah i've been listening and trying to um figure out like evan sort of well what what does it mean for the report right understanding that this is the direction that you know we think um it will take in the legislature um and then listening to rebecca's suggestion and i think you know if since we know or believe that you know the office the racial equity director will be receiving the data entity we could tighten up some of the language to add some of the recommendations that rebecca made right um so that it's it's in the report it's clear it's not something that necessarily you know has to come up in testimony but it comes from the whole committee um and there may be some other things and that we would want to change in the report itself without taking out the opportunity proposal that there still could be other places um for the data entity to be housed but i think it might help us sort of shape and tighten up things and make a couple other additional recommendations that we've talked about tonight if that's making sense um i have to share something that i shared when i i don't remember i feel like i spent last winter testifying god only knows to whom i was speaking um when trump came into office transgender people had one world that they had come to understand and to be able to move in in certain ways and one of those ways was they were that allowed to serve without shame without hiding in the military whatever else you may think of that man he came into office and with the stroke of a pen that went away and i would just like to point out how many times in the history of discrimination in the united states of america rights of people are taken away with the stroke of a pen and i have to say as much as i want to be a 19th century wig and well it's real politic and that's what we have to play right now there is something in my black queer neurodivergent and jewish gut that says i don't think so not until somebody can assure me that some person who would rather see me wiped off the face of the bloody planet can't pick up a pen in a decade or the next time some wave of so-called populism washes over us and writes me out and i would be pissed on a more humorous note that we've just spent i didn't take a vacation this summer to write this damned thing and not so that some white man can write it out a decade hence as i say when the next wave of populism comes through sorry that was not a very chant picture sort of expression but that was a time the community member i mean i don't agree with jeff in many ways except jeff's right jeff's totally right i mean he's i can't argue him but he's absolutely right i just don't agree with that but that's possibly because i'm i don't know dumb i don't know i but he's right things get people get written out of stuff all the time i mean transgender people didn't have a clue about what to do after that i mean the number of petitions that littered my inbox about i suicides went up by 15 percent it wasn't just a notional moment people died i said this to the legislature i i i just it is hard to be a person from historically stigmatized communities and believe in the goodwill of people in power we have learned that is unwise and everything in my body is in war right now i want to be if y'all don't know 19th century wigs they kind of were really into real politics they were like what can really be done let's not be utopian and there's a part of me that is absolutely like that and there's another part of me that watched my transgendered friends and it was ugly and i know we live in vermont and we we've got this vermont exceptionalism thing going i love it nothing that happens in the rest of the united states happens in vermont water flows up hill in vermont did you all know that the sky is green in vermont because it's vermont i mean all these things that just happen in vermont because it's vermont i'm sorry last time i checked they were humans living in the united states and i am frightened i'll shut up i would you know we have been so long overdue for this project as we all know we're different that there is this you're so close right and i understand the pressure to get it out something out and seeing what we can get out next session but i am also very much at a place where i'm reacting the same way as etan and jeffrey i appreciate how dangerous data can be when it is used as a political tool against the most vulnerable people who have been just you know disadvantaged and i and i see it from both the professional experience level representing people who are the least powerful to protect themselves and these very powerful systems and and also personally again my perspective you know as a biracial of you know filipino mother a daughter of an immigrant from the philippines it is also very personal and and oftentimes when we talk about data and and vermont being you know we talk about it in black and white terms um i i am channeling chief stevens in terms of feeling like you know there are so many communities just rendered invisible just how we're thinking about it and there are so so much of an opportunity and need here in vermont to just get us somewhere better than where we are now and understand these issues compared to where other states are at and i understand that which is why i have been motivated to work really hard this summer as well and etan i i feel you like we have spent so much time um and monica and evan i think i you know in terms of thinking about where we are we're close we work together on this on this report and and perhaps that is it where we're headed in the right and stay in the direction and maybe there's maybe that's what we need to do next is where we want to take the you know hearing what what the chances are for next session how we want to adjust and what type of specific language if any we can pull from other examples in the statutory scheme or other general principles of what we're hoping could be used but ultimately i don't know if i can get into support of something sort of as a halfway measure i just think it is very dangerous um and very sensitive to how things can easily get entrenched um in a government system anyone else so i i would just want to make one comment as well that um yeah we will so coach and i are you know we're we're dealing we would like to to have exactly as the our DAP may be coming out uh and recommending it and um it would be delightful if we could spend more time and figuring out and diving deeper into three different options of where it could be but we're just faced with this reality we're faced with the reality that redistricting is going to take up this particular committees significant time and and and they're going to have very limited capacity um but we would also like to keep the momentum going that we've been building over the last couple years uh since the social equity caucus came into being and we've really been able to focus on these issues and we also at least you know we understand we're in a very imperfect world of getting things done uh where things are done incrementally but particularly difficult in Vermont where we have a citizen legislature with very limited staff availability and we're there for five months and that's why we have to kick some of these deep dives like you guys have been doing for us you know into groups like you um but but at the end of the day you know we still have a pretty significant amount of work that we would need to have the legislature do to look at three different options or there's a lot of significant work if you want to I mean I hate to you know I'll throw this out there I mean do we want to extend the time that this group is working and and come back and say this is where this should be and exactly how it should be stood up you know I I'm afraid of doing it that way for a couple reasons number one we've already really been putting a lot of burden on on your shoulders that you know certainly and number two is again I believe we have some momentum that we've been building to try to get some of these things done um but you know you all can certainly discuss you know how if it's worth proceeding uh with choosing a path uh that we think that we have the best chance of getting this next step done Susanna I just wanted to respond to the representative last question about whether an extension of time is appropriate and I would say that I am somebody who is who feels very strongly that uh time extensions are usually always very helpful I respect that the legislature acts with a sense of urgency and yet sometimes things just take longer so I wouldn't be opposed to seeking more time however I'm not sure that our quandary here is a matter of rush I mean that certainly plays into it but I think really it's just about government structure and what we're comfortable conceding maybe that's the wrong word but I think we're all just stuck about a state government that functions but that may not be laid out how each of us thinks is ideal and we're creating new entities now and trying to place them in existing or new places and nothing quite feels like it fits right and there's there's a German word for this uh Zugzwang where in chess where all of the moves are bad moves and so I know you probably thought that I was going to comment on whether or not I think it should go in the racial equity office and I won't because I have already right you've you've all heard me say the same thing if you put it there we'll get done but you know you've heard me say I think that it's a natural fit for a racial equity office but I don't think that the racial equity office is necessarily a great fit for AOA and on top of that the concerns about independence are fair um you know the current principle we have I don't have any qualms about this admin but we're not making decisions for this admin or for the people who are currently on the board to continue the chess analogy we're making decisions for whoever could be in place and so these are uh fine questions to ask and then of course there is the matter of scope and I've heard all of you speak very passionately about why it should or should not be limited to race I'm somebody who thinks that there are a lot of identities and protected categories that we should be doing deep deep dives about and that it's appropriate to collect these sorts of data about more than just race and I'm also very sympathetic to the fact that this is a racial disparities um the panel and that this is the specific charge that was given to us by the legislature you know I I also have to acknowledge that if we if we put this in the racial equity I said I wasn't going to comment about it if we put this in the racial equity office um then necessarily we are creating a much heavier lean for that office towards criminal justice that that that becomes its major focus just by virtue of person power and scope and resourcing and so that's another question about you know just a philosophical question in state government do we do we really think that that is where the majority of resources should go for a racial equity office to criminal justice matters and the answer might be yes the answer might not be but those are just some things to think about so as usual I have given no answers just more questions thank you for listening anyone else I just wanted to chime in on the bit about uh more time for this exercise and it's not that I haven't enjoyed spending my Monday evenings with you I think that you're you've honestly all been I mean these meetings have been productive and in many ways a pleasure they've been it's been a good group to be a part of but um and I don't know if we're headed in this direction but I'm not sure that I would be a proponent of asking for more time in for this group in our report I still do think that our report is headed in the right direction and if there was a conversation that needed to be have once the legislature reconvenes about more time I think this group could certainly spend more time evaluating these issues but I'm also mindful that that there may be a need to do a fiscal analysis of these of the potential homes for these for this entity and that to my knowledge I don't think that we could ask the joint fiscal office to do that I don't I don't think we can do that but I might be wrong about that but if there was a group that consisted of a mixture of legislators that wanted to explore this would they be able to tap some of those more traditionally legislative resources and and continue this work after the session if that need actually did arise so maybe this is more of a question rather than a comment but I sure so I should probably rephrase it but if if if we couldn't get it done this spring and we and more work needed to be done over the summer would we want it to be this group or would we want it to be some sort of group of legislators that's tasked with with answering some of the remaining questions that we haven't answered I don't know I'm throwing just throwing that out that question out there for folks to marinate on julio yeah I I think I may be repeating some of what's been said but I think a couple of things might be might be new so that's that's about to be me to put the hand up you know I've worked with a lot of governments outside of Vermont that have undertaken massive data collection and analysis processes and I've never seen any and for people who've thrown in more money than I think the state of Vermont is likely to do and I've never seen one a mass a lot of usable data within the first year or even the first two or three years so if wherever this department is established but we're established today by the 2023 legislative session I doubt very much you'd have a pile of data that you could really use very well because this this state is very diffuse in terms of its record keeping there are some data that's in a paper driven system that's not going to be accessible there are going to be lots of issues to be negotiated so for me I mean really what what I was hearing from the start of the meeting was really was do you want do you want your department to sit on ice or or sit on the wall for a year or do you want to get it started under the office of racial equity which might be a possibility um they all you know some of the issues about independence I hear them I appreciate appreciate them very much um frankly uh back in 2018 2019 people were saying that uh the lack of insulation uh related to the uh the racial equity commission and the director of racial equity was the same sort of issues um and uh we have that position house in the agency administration and my experience from civil rights has been nothing but positive uh and I don't so I don't see it as a danger to put it in for a year and I and I don't my limited experience uh with the legislature it's only I don't know how many years but not as much as someone on the call here but uh the idea of it once it's there it has to stay there forever um that's a fear but I don't think that's an inevitability by any stretch especially since I don't think after the first year that unit is going to be up and running and everyone's going to say oh it's working perfectly leave it as it is my guess is that a few months into it everyone will realize that there wasn't enough money put into it that the task was bigger than people scoped out um so I mean I just have I have the same concerns I just don't think they're they're nearly to the degree that I'm hearing and part of that really is borne on the fact that that first year is going to be a very slow year for those new professionals who are me collecting that data is very time consuming and it can be very frustrating but it um the the portrait that I think that's going to emerge by the end of 2022 if the legislature does enact something in the session is going to be people realize you do need more resources and then you can have that argument about departments and about which three places and the legislature that they're going to be housed in and um and then we'll have that debate I don't think this legislature historically when I think about issues that have been revisited and revisited like the fair and impartial policing statute has been amended I think five times in five years uh the uh because people have felt like the work wasn't complete um the criminal justice council was reconstituted its membership by statute last year uh so there are some much more community voice we'll see how it works out and I think it's likely if it if if it hasn't proven to be effective there'll probably be another bill to tweak with that again so I'm not I'm not you know sitting here with rose colored glasses at the same time um I think it is uh again the fact that the you know the the opening act for this data collection I think is is not going to produce a lot of results it's going to it's going to be a lot of groundwork laying and and I think that that to me that makes it less likely that it's going to be entrenched uh and stay there forever uh and I think there will be uh a better time um uh I I don't I don't have any experience with the redistrict redistricting um uh process but uh that pension issue is a big issue and that's that's going to take a lot of time and I think that the I appreciate the candor uh which with this all starts because to me it sounds like you basically are looking at a high possibility of it just sitting on the wall for a year and that's not something that's very attractive to me so uh there I've heard some good ideas about things we we maybe we could suggest to build the the additional protections maybe for the existing office uh and uh and maybe do it in a way so that you can even build in the legislation that there's gonna you know it's gonna be up for change or debate the following year I mean there are different types of sunsetting or timelines that can be built in the legislation about where things are going to be housed or how they're going to be administered so um I guess I'm less worried than some of the other folks here it doesn't mean I'm not not worried because nothing's certain in any legislature anywhere in this country but um but you know I'm just less concerned and I wanted to offer that perspective as well representatives where are we in terms of uh draft legislation because of course we haven't been able to have um anybody here because we can't have that um where where does that sit as the chair I'm suddenly feeling a abdominal clench of terror uh go ahead I I mean I have so so um the legislature in drafting is largely first come first serve and getting requests into the queue and I have gotten the request into the queue um but could I tell you exactly when I'm going to be able to have a legislative council working with me uh no they have to have everything ready to go by the end of December I mean that's when that's when bills have to be done uh and and they know that this is coming I'm keeping them in the loop uh as soon as they're ready whether I have the report or not I will start moving towards getting a draft uh worked on uh you know I can watch or look at the preliminary reports and such and that's all happening behind the scenes anyway and it can be modified once the final report comes out and if there's significant differences or additions and whatnot we can we can accommodate that uh so you know I will look at as soon as they're ready I will look at where the work product is from this group at that time I know that in the legislation it says that there's supposed to be draft legislation it can be more high level conceptual you know it's it's whatever you can accomplish there and again there's no great fine or consequence you know if not everything is perfectly done in this report well I mean we've already talked about the fact that one of these questions cannot be answered by the time this report comes out we put in there as far as wanting legislation uh you know we try to put that into at least I've and and coach uh we've tried to put that into where we've had task forces and such because we believe that that eases the path to there actually being action you know if it's just a recommendation that comes out uh or a report on something it's it doesn't have as high of a probability of actually making it through so that's kind of why we put that in there but I don't think that's a concern here because this is a high priority uh for uh coach and I it's it's a high priority for leadership as well so you know so I wouldn't worry that much about whether you are going to be able to draft this pristine legislation for us whatever you're able to get done with your folks is great and is like I say as soon as I as soon as I actually get moving with a legislative council I'll look at the work product and and we'll let you know in case you want to bring in a couple of your people to help me out with the legislative council as well so that was along with the answer but no thank you I I really wasn't certain and I just suddenly was going November 15th is no longer four months from now so suddenly yeah all right uh eight oh we we've done that before as well you know there's been uh I I know a number of different collaborations over time uh you know with uh Evan's predecessor and Rebecca and you know others yourself and you know in actually the the editing you know of language um you know some of the points that you know Julio made you know when we changed the the group that has the most authority in policing you know the criminal justice you know council you know that was that was epic last session to get that done you know we increased the affected community's voice on that committee in in a very large way and a lot of that came from you guys you know the energy to do that came from here you know so I think we all experience you know what you shared and what Jeffrey shared and what Rebecca was talking about because we live it you know we we all live it in some sense of you know the but at the at the same time you know I have to go back you know to you know some of our colleagues and mentors and you know like you know uh John Lewis talked about uh things coming your way you know you have to be in the way in order to have them come your way so the fact that we're you know not allowing it to hang on the wall and we're moving in a in a hopeful positive direction you know is is something to be said you know as well and that's because of your work you know we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for you guys you know at the end of the day and and it's you know one of the things I've learned in recovery you know after a while is is that it's about progress not perfection you know and and that's what this is is ultimately about so uh geez I just doubted myself but anyways uh that's okay enough pontificating right anyone else okay um thank you both representatives for this um I it certainly had to clearly uh come up and I'm really grateful I think we all are that you came this evening and uh gave us the information we needed to know whatever we may feel about it so um um thank you uh are people come my other plan for the evening was literally to I noticed to my delight that there were a lot of comments on the new and improved draft document and I thought we should get really boring and go through them um but I if people are up for that um I would recommend we take about five minutes to just sort of switch gears and then come back to it is that acceptable just sort of not or something I mean okay good so it is currently basically 720 let's be back at uh 725 and we will start in on the edits that you all have made all right 725 please thanks a ton and everyone thank you is everybody back how do I know how I mean what does that mean is everyone back how do I know I mean we just start we just start and people just we just start and yeah so Evan's cat is back so that's the important part Evan's cat is back and Evan's cat is so cute oh my god all right I can't get distracted by cat um our name is cricket oh god sorry now my my cat moment is happening um I there were two ways of going about this that I could think of and you guys may have others I thought that each person who had commented could go sequentially through the document with each of their comments and talk about them and we could discuss the other way is to just go from this comment to the next comment meaning from person a to person b person c whatever back to a what would people like to do I think going by section and getting all the comments at once by section all right then let us begin with the introduction well now the introduction is act 65 which we can't argue about oh no but Evan did what did I do let me no he didn't okay no I'm sorry that the act name was actually uh oh yes right the an act relating to miscellaneous something like that I remember that all right so we need to fix that I'm putting in will be fixed just so I know what's going on okay um next I'm gonna need help guys my eyes are really bad I think this is this is one of mine is as well I it was uh yeah it was two two comments the the first was I was more just a missing quotation mark if we decide to keep this quote in which is you know we can do that yeah um but then the other one was and it and it's sort of I guess I had a couple of comments about the references to the toolkit in general because you know the average reader even uh even legislators might not know what that toolkit is or be familiar with it and so I thought there there could be kind of like two approaches one is we could just sort of keep all these very specific references to the AIS AISB toolkit um um but but we but we still might need some more context just to sort of identify like what it is where we got it why it's important or the second the second potential approach approach would still be to give a little bit of that context like maybe two or three sentences but but then just sort of say what we like about the toolkit and and just say it's it's our expectation our desire whatever word we want to use as the rdap that this toolkit and form the bureau slash offices rulemaking and whatever other sort of procedures they put in place to do this data collection and and I defer a little bit to to Karen and and Robin on that because they're they can probably translate the data collection and analysis components of the toolkit a little better than than I can but I was so I was trying to flag that there might be two different ways to go about addressing the toolkit and how we might want to do it I guess could depend upon how many specific references we want and then also how long we want this report to be um so just kind of throwing that out there Monica you have your hand up I just wanted to follow up with that because I did make a couple of similar comments throughout the document that um it seemed like we didn't describe the toolkit when we needed to if we wanted to keep it so heavily referenced in the document but I but I also agree that we may just want to do an introduction and either you know put it in as an as an appendix or a sense or reference it because the whole thing is really important and when we start pulling so much out of it I just feel like we're taking part of the toolkit and putting it into our report particularly some of those sections at the end that took you know a couple pages of it um so I don't want to discount the you know the toolkit and I want to make sure that it gets referenced and used at the data entity but I think that we just need to restructure it a little bit how we reference it what if there were a few sentences such as Evan suggested and then if just the whole thing comes in as an appendix yeah I like that idea and stressing the the importance of it and the the recommendation that the data entity really rely on that toolkit and I think Karen you mentioned something else just also about the AASP just general data integration and data sharing I'm not sure if you made that comment but I thought that was a good one too I did make the comment because I thought the the data I think it's data collection and integration document that's referred to in the ASP toolkit lays the foundation that Julio was talking about earlier and I think that's a really important piece okay can I ask a favor and that would be for someone who has the document open at the moment to please type this in these corrections because I really don't have my readers and it's turning into soup at the moment it's Rebecca I had my hand raised too and I was just gonna say I didn't get my um changes up um to it before this meeting but I had along the same lines that Evan and Monica are saying here it's not that we needed additional language to stress the key points which is a make it explicit that we heavily relied upon this toolkit and that we um envision or hope that that future planning rely on this container rely on this toolkit and agree on the appendix so I actually put in some sample language in it and just now in the current uh shared document version of some suggested language um yeah okay thank you all right I think that goes I should point out it goes a step further which recommends that um that there be direct consultation with the AISP again that's referenced we made a comment a while ago that some other state agency I think it was Department of Mental Health was that Abby who who directly uh directly um consulted with AISP and so I thought oh let's we could put it even in there um referencing that availability of extra oh okay okay and what about the I just want to make a caution I just want to make a cautionary note there and maybe it needs to go in the document if you're gonna reference um consulting with AISP is that I think it's great to to um consult with them on the foundational information although I think we have Mo as a free um a person who can freely work with us to um look at the foundational information but to make sure anybody that's consulting is very well versed in criminal justice data and I don't know if AISP are or not I have not seen any reference to criminal justice data on their website and I've looked for it um so I would just make sure that if if someone's going to consult with them we also have people that are well versed in the data in Vermont criminal justice data in Vermont got it and again can someone note that please because I can't see it's just too small thank you whoever I can sort of see the names I'll put it in I'm talking but I'm on new I'll I'll just add a short note thank you that would be helpful um we went through Evan we went through Monica Abigail Crocker think I think I actually had one one more in there you did where but it really is a pretty minor thing it's it's more of just a placeholder to remind ourselves that when we go back and do the final proof read whatever name whatever name we settle on for this entity um right um just to to to make it consistent because sometimes it's the office of Rachel and social justice statistics sometimes it's the office right you know just it's just a final proof reading thing that's all it was yeah now of course of course we're we're a few weeks from there yet but yeah absolutely thank you um um go for it someone was going to speak okay maybe not um we are now to what I was just gonna I was just gonna I know I was just gonna go I if you want if it's helpful but if it's not telling me but if it's if it's helpful I can I can pretty much see it and I can sort of call them call the comments out if that's helpful if you're having trouble seeing it that would be helpful yeah okay because I know we're up to Abigail Crocker we are and hers had to deal with that bullet point number five on the top of page four it says the comment says perhaps expand to state the potential increased ease of sharing and access to administrative data across state entities within state government I think I'll just comment on that I think it's such an important point you know in my own conversations with talking with AISP and and I know that it might not be on their website but they do have a lot of experience working with justice data sets um you know in combination with other systems which I think is one of the hopes of this group is that it could foundationally grow to incorporate like public health and stuff um but one of the big messages that they shared was you know when you talk about different levels of data sharing agreements sharing sensitive data within state entities keeping it behind that firewall of state government is a lot easier so to me coupled with the fact that state governments have sort of the overhead and the infrastructure that's mentioned in the previous points to me that was a big one here just that idea of the data sharing of administrative data across and within state entities is much easier than with outside entities discussion I'm comfortable with that that language change okay I mean we we would we would need it in order for the data to flow into the office great right basic right okay would someone like to write that in now um Karen do you want to continue to do the sort of note taking and I'll continue to do the reading does that is that okay sure and that one sorry before you move on I think that one has language in there right yeah okay and for what is right that was I agree this is was a good point Abby right um the next comment was also mine I I proposed deleting a small clause at the end of the first sentence in section three it it wasn't because I found the language substantively objectionable it was just the sentence was getting kind of long and I thought is there a way to make it more readable and that potential deletion stood out as maybe the easiest one to make but if folks feel strongly about keeping it in I I was just trying to make this sentence a little shorter take it out that's my vote I can read that it's big uh oh and then yeah then this is you know I this is a word choice question the next comment is a word choice question and bullet point number one whether we want to use the word govern inform direct hope you know tomato tomato maybe I don't know but um you know it was funny because I read it again because we got so stuck on this a few weeks ago and I read it again and you know the thing is a word has a particular definition because of its context when govern is used here it does not mean the same thing as it means when we talk about the governing body or governance in general or I govern you I mean context plays an important part in definition and so I don't really have a problem with govern here and I actually like the strength of it that the relationship should govern I mean it's more poetic and I get that but the thing that I like about poetry is nuance so is that what I mean if is that what we want to go with I mean ultimately I mean this I'm going with govern you all do whatever you want yeah I think it's fine I think govern works you know to add to the additional options there's also the proposal to use direct which got some nods in the comment section on the side I think okay fine either one governor direct for me is works direct is great love direct all right excellent look at us making progress now um okay number three some um so Abigail you suggested adding a number three to this list that said consider adding a new item to help clarify what all the subsequent data practices are referring to three uh it says develop a comprehensive data set office data set to understand inform and address disparities within state systems the office data set should be built to include administrative data across state agencies and departments I like it felt like it gave grounding to all this sort of subsequent data practice references discussion is anyone like what is it what is administrative what is administrative data like as a subset of data so I think that's one of the things that is I think inherently confusing throughout the document data is really anything you collect information but really what the governing piece we're talking about here are the administrative data things that are collected for operational purposes within state entities and and so it's really like the data that's been outlined what's in different specific data systems across these different different organizations so if you're bringing that administrative data together that's really the governing data that's what's owned by these different entities so so I think it's important to distinguish that because in other places we talk about different types of data so this is really governing administrative data which is owned by these different entities and I just want to add there that which he had suggested in the document I think it's either later on or in one of the I think it's later on in this document that we actually define administrative data for the document okay I suggest that good this is Robin I have a comment on this current comments and that's just a kind of a not disagreeing with it but just the way that that sometimes entities read these these reports or documents we don't want one data set we want the office to be flexible in creating data sets that are relevant to the questions that the governing board asks that one data set you know I think Abby will agree won't do it you know the the questions the data sets have to be continual and responsive to the questions that the governing committee asks so delete and I don't know where to put it in that and I don't know if this is the you know I'm just saying there needs to be more than one I think just to be clear I think that admin is so I agree so maybe administrative data sets but also in future subsequent sections when we talked about what data will be prioritized and collected I've added a few other comments that I think speak to that specifically around different levels like readily available data not readily available but existing and then non-existing and sort of that cyclical pattern that you're referring to because I totally agree it's not it's not one and it's also some of it doesn't exist yet right okay right so can we take it in with sets the set being made plural and the issues yeah okay go for it yeah I wrote some language in there aton thank you yeah okay the next comment is on is also from Abigail and that relates to existing number four the existing number four says follow best practices on data sharing integration analysis and reporting and Abigail's comment is would recommend including data collection and best practices especially as there is a priority in supporting mixed methods work sure okay number five had dealt with assisting various entities to improve data collection and Abigail recommended that it that the various entities we consider changing various entities to state agencies and departments thus clarifying focus on using state administrative data systems also really appreciate this focus on improving data collection and reporting practices perhaps there is an opportunity to be more intentional in this domain throughout the document and then she also suggested adding a sentence to number five that said the legislature should be aware that entity oh no that was me was that me that was me I did that because I'm trying to flag whenever I can my department might need some help okay we're open to the assistance well I think I think that's true of all departments Evan I read that statement and I was okay and I think that's I think everyone's gonna and I've been saying that for a while too so I totally support that statement we're I did recently learn that we might not be as bad as I thought we were but I thought we were pretty bad so it's a little bit but I just I do want to try and manage expectations but I do agree with Abigail's suggestions that it should be developed and improved because that might be important for some folks and I also agree that changing various entities to state agencies and departments might be helpful as well so on the state agencies and departments how about state agencies departments and their contractors yeah because I'm thinking about the all the CJCs the diversion programs you know people who are collecting data and carrying out the functions of state government but have a contract to do so and aren't tied into state government data systems yeah I agree and that was going to be my question I was like I was feeling like like some of the data we will want in the future goes well beyond housing yeah house elsewhere yeah I like that I like that and I you know I think that my intention with looking at it was if somebody says assist various entities you might have like a random group off the street who'd be like cool it's your job to assist me and I just knew that would be out of scope so this might help add clarity thank you although I you know maybe not in this Abby brings up a good point is that later down the road or somewhere the ability for this office to provide technical assistance to people who are community organizations who don't get state funding to collect data or to have that kind of this is what you you know data 101 to provide technical assistance consistent with the toolkit to agencies at some point in time or to community organizations might be helpful all right we have to put that in do you know where yet Robin or we haven't gotten there yet I don't know where yet that just was a thought that came to my mind about technical assistance and people asking for it we'll flag it thank you okay the next comment also from Abigail related to number six number six said currently says identify the data that can be easily collected or that are already collected and Abigail suggested changing that to identify existing state administrative data across agencies and departments for inclusion in the office data set develop strategy for accessing data that are readily available i.e. in existing reports or extracts data that exist but may not be readily available i.e. data and excel spreadsheets and data gaps where data do not currently exist where gaps exist support agencies and departments and best practices to address sounds lovely to me and very detailed discussion it seems to me like it captures what we were trying to state but in perhaps a more detailed manner exactly unless i'm misunderstanding something i think i think it does capture it i also feel like we say that someplace else because the language sounds kind of familiar to me and i don't know if it's later and Karen maybe you are thinking about it but i feel like we see similar types of things later on so just making sure that we might be consistent yeah we do actually it's in the the the data governance section down there okay i'll take a look at that and make sure the language is similar yeah okay by the way i spoke with a few legislators over the weekend and they were really funny they said you know some people have a thing about repetition we don't just thought i'd pass that along okay keep going if you change it and it's not the same then it's confusing yeah then they freak out so i'm just saying make it let's make sure we make it the same well i have to be like real repetition yes all right i'm going to keep going but i'm going to close i'm going to turn off my camera for a minute because i have to go get my charger but i can read and do that at the same time so the next comment had to do with number seven right now it says analyze the data and abigail suggested changing it to analyze the data included in the office data set i like it but i would say again plural sets yeah okay and then we had a new suggested number eight from abigail which reads develop and establish data sharing agreements at multiple levels including one data sharing of nonsensitive data among state agencies and departments two data sharing of sensitive data among state agencies and departments three data sharing with external researchers and evaluators uh and four public use data files and she notes that each of these levels of data sharing are governed by different legal requirements and all serve unique and important functions okay data people you're on yeah i mean they're gonna have to do it so there you can put it in there's no way to do this without doing that so you can put in exactly what they're going to be doing um you know a lot of these entities already have data sharing agreements so it's a question of how to modify some of those uh data sharing agreements to include this new office um and you know exactly what that looks like and how the data are going to be transferred so they're going to have to do it it's part of the job got it all right and just to add sort of the clarity of why i put it there was it i think it really is clear that it's sort of four unique things not just the generic data sharing and specifically um you know what drew me to it as the external researcher is um i know how hard it is to put these in place with external researchers for each of the individual entities so if they're going through this process being a resource so researchers could go there instead of the individual entities would be great cool let us get given that we've got this wonderful momentum going here this is fun evan are you there oh there i'm here i'm here evan let's do one more and call it in the evening okay um on number nine oh number nine and oh number nine and ten um yeah my that was my question i wondered whether or not they were somewhat duplicative or should number nine refer to the rdap what was i i don't even know what i was thinking about that um i think rather than spelling it all out oh oh yeah maybe that yes yes oh that was it because ten was nine yes okay sorry so i was wondering should ten because ten refers to reports of the advisory panel on racial disparities i was pretty sure that was us but then i confused like is there more than one of these okay that's our real that's our real title got it that's our real title we just say our dap because it's more musical um what was your question about this it seemed like nine and ten were somewhat duplicative but that could have been as a result of me not being quite as familiar with data collection but if they're not duplicative then my thought was should number number ten use the abbreviation rdap because i i was in guessing it was referring to us okay sure i guess why not and it does i have to say it feels like two different things because the report of december 2020 is different than these reports that may come about in the future that we are by statute required to produce biannually oh i see i think that was my confusion i i didn't realize that ten was i didn't realize that ten was looking prospectively yes okay that's that's why i didn't understand it okay thank you for that okay well that was fun thank you all i will bring my glasses next week i don't know what i i was late i just ran out the door um i want to continue this i just want to i want to keep going like this um i think this is productive i think we're getting a lot done um i want to thank everybody for their comments um i want to thank everybody for what was a very um a difficult discussion i think when the representatives were here that was hard or at least i'll say it was hard for me um it was hard for me um if it was hard for the rest of you thank you for being here and helping out with it um and i hope we will see everyone next week abby including you because you've got like a lot to answer for so uh so i'm hoping we'll see everyone next week thanks so much for all of this and i really do feel like this report is coming together nicely i feel like it's coming together nicely way before the last five minutes before it's due um and that's a wonderful thing that is a wonderful thing so have a good week and see you all next monday at six p.m same time same place wherever that may be all right good night thank you everybody all right