 Good afternoon. This is the Senate Government Operations Committee meeting. It's March 31st I would just remind folks that we don't use the chat when we have our committee meetings In deference to our chair who's not with us today. We're also way behind schedule Actually, we'll be here soon. We are way behind schedule because of the Technical glitches on the Senate floor. So we have changed around our schedule a little bit We move ahead with a couple of looking at a couple of bills. We're actually waiting for our witnesses to arrive as well Okay, so We are going on to s95 Government Accountability Committee And this is um s95 was uh changing the um Two of the outcomes and then asking for um uh Some disaggregation of um information around um race and um ethnicity and gender In some instances so we're senator Clarkson Do we have new appointees to GAC? What do we have new appointees to GAC? The government accountability committee with the senate It's brian keisha um myself and Is there anything for a click? That's what I thought. Oh, yes, I think you're right. Yes So you're carrying our water is all I'm trying to I I couldn't remember who had right great Thank you true roselli will be joining us at 315. So they're about five minutes Okay, great. So we did have we walked through and drew and Sue walked through and what this bill does is makes those two That one change to the outcomes it changes It combines the um Uh I can't think of what um, I have it here. Sorry. I'm so disorganized today. I've just had um The um it combines the um The two outcomes that specifically dealt with um elders living in places where they Wanted to and people with disabilities living in places where they wanted to and that Problem there was that it was too too. Um Group specific and it should be a population Um outcome. Is that right brian brian is the chair Of government accountability. So Yes, madam chair. That is correct. We um, we had a subgroup uh, which was uh I remember emily cornhizer and uh, jessica uh from sted from sted And I think drew and maybe sue And maybe coach there were five people. I think on it and they came up with the recommendation That and if you want to look at s 95, it's on our web page. Yeah, and senator whites correct what it did was Population or the outcome number seven used to say vermont's elders live with dignity and in settings they prefer And outcome eight said vermonters with disabilities to live in dignity Live with dignity and settings that they prefer. So all we did was combine seven and eight to Delete the reference of elders and disabilities and just say vermonters Should live in settings they prefer and then the rest of the change is just renumbering The outcomes so that we we end up now with nine instead of 10. That's all this bill does basically Everything else is current law Right and the indicators and desegregating the indicators that isn't In statute that no those those are Um Done by the government accountability committee. I mean that's where it comes from but it doesn't require a statutory change So this that's all this bill does So, uh, we did that work over the summer Uh, basically we met we had public hearing and then we came together again About six weeks ago, maybe I can't remember exactly. I think it was right before the session began So actually it might be more like nine weeks ago And we we went through the uh indicators which sit underneath the outcomes Indicators are more specific things which directly relate to the how the outcome fits in And we finished our work there and the chief performance officer has already, uh, hopefully done Fair job because I think by The date and march that you had to get that done So all this bill does is what senator white and I have indicated it does it Three numbers It kind of loses one of the outcomes by combining two groups into just brahmanners and then renumbers the outcome So we now have nine And under those under that one outcome that's combined now there can be indicators for specific populations I mean there could be um, because we can That that's where indicators come in is to support the the um outcomes so Are there questions about this or So It's not really a question about what's in it, but What is Which is Getting the ball rolling on that kind of public process around indicators So that the public can weigh in on any changes You know, I I've been thinking about that and I think that um I'm not sure how how we Do that because um This is really kind of almost an operational Uh administrative kind that the indicators are um What what we look for in order to support the like um all Vermonters should um I can't remember there's one around employment and so you look at specific indicators to figure out if you're If you're going in the right direction there or the wrong direction and I'm I'm not sure how I'm trying I've been trying to imagine how the Public Looks at indicators that are primarily administrative Um, I I don't know. I don't know what anybody would have to say about indicators. That's all I mean, I I feel like it's a disservice to call them administrative if they are In you know quality of life outcomes that we hope are You know In mind for everything we do in the state You know, I would I would hope they're more aspirational than administrative and if that's the case The state deserves to weigh in on our north star You know, if that if we're saying these are the things we're going to measure to know if we're serving vermonter Is that feels like a very public? issue to me And it can be and I didn't mean to say that it was just administrative it it just Um, I mean, so there are 45 indicators approximately And I don't know how I've been trying to figure out how you engage public the public around Those 45 indicators. I mean if you had a How do you I that that's that's the The issue that I'm having here and and this has nothing to do with the bill itself the bill itself just changes those two things. So I think that um, we can I'd like to separate the two conversations because the bill itself is just changing the two outcomes I am I was saying I I thought there would be a public process around the outcome And I think you have to have a public process around the outcomes in order to decide the indicators I don't So you So I don't know that it's fair to then say we're ready to decide exactly what indicators you should have No, no, no, no that I I guess I'm confused here now So you're suggesting that we have a public hearing around what our 10 outcomes should be I'm I'm not suggesting a public hearing. I'm suggesting paying for a A community process something that's much more common in other states where you actually Consult with someone to engage around the state about what the if these outcomes Are in line with what Vermonters think we should be measuring against to determine if we are accurately Articulating the quality of life. They hope to enjoy in the state. I don't even know where I mean I've heard from the history that these just sort of appeared No, what what how when did the public get to weigh in on me? Oh, we had tons and tons of um committee meetings and I can remember in room 10 having Many people involved in the conversations and we had This was these outcomes maybe this was I I don't know. I mean that the outcomes were decided A long time many a few years ago. I Didn't you have with Diane Snelling don't I remember a lot? Yeah Caring well, I hope we've evolved from believing that who who can come to the state house and Advocate in the house is the same as as public engagement around such important outcome All right, so I'm I guess I'm confused here about and maybe drew can help me here is Are we talking about changing our outcomes? Is that what we're talking about here is having People weigh in on The 10 outcome or the nine outcomes that we have and Making changes to the outcomes themselves Is that what we're talking about? Hi everyone. It's nice to see you. I'm sorry for joining a little bit late, but Be part of this company just started So drew Wesley. I'm the director of performance improvement at the agency of human services um In 2010, I believe which is before I was involved there was some work to establish outcomes of well-being And then in and I can't speak to the process for that, but then in 2014 the government accountability committee Solicited stakeholder engagement um around developing Sort of re-establishing outcomes of well-being in in statute And I can't speak to sort of the history of why that was Necessary except that we started to see more of a saturation across the state in the nonprofit sector and in the state sector State sector in using results based accountability and so there was a a willingness and an openness among sort of That sector to re-engage this conversation and it extended across state government to include representatives from other state agencies and departments outside of the health and human services world um I do think to senator rom's comment Uh, it was a quite limited stakeholder engagement ultimately in terms of um, how we were thinking about Yeah, I'll just pause there and say that I think in front of us now to your point senator way Is an opportunity in s95 to adjust outcome language which I do not Think is an appropriate approach to changing outcomes. I think a stakeholder engagement process to revisit outcomes Is how we should seek to change them and my understanding is that the recommendation around Uh changing outcome language that we've seen in this statute Just came from a small group conversation a small working group conversation out of the government accountability committee um and was more of a brainstorm than it was Really ultimately a recommendation to be put in statute And so we have recommended in the government accountability report that or the in the memo that sues allergy performance officers sent to the government accountability committee That we do engage a robust stakeholder engagement process over the summer That could facilitate revisiting indicators through an equity lens and through deep Relationship building in communities of color and it could include that would be the appropriate place to include A conversation about outcomes So I I hope that that clarifies something and doesn't further confuse It doesn't um For me, I guess my My question is when you engage First of all, I I will say senator rama. I'm not sure that um Um We are in a position to um Ask for funding to um to do this. I To hire somebody to actually do this. I I am very aware of Uh budgetary issues and that we've already we're asking for um Anyway, that that's just a personal feeling of mine that i'm not sure that This is something that I I Am not sure if we could support um hiring consultants to go out and do this Do this engagement, but my concern is How you how you do this around Outcomes and indicators and and I mean it first of all it it took just the legislature A bazillion years to understand the difference between outcomes and indicators and what they mean and and um, I I don't know how you Anyway, this this is I'm just I'm just I'm really struggling with this one Yeah, drew Um, I just want to jump back in because I I can understand where you're coming from I think that there's there's a different um Use and understanding of outcomes and indicators that seems like it's landed in the legislature than in um communities So I want to just clarify that there are many Almost every I think nonprofit organization in vermont Now has some familiarity with results based accountability given changes that have been made in grant funding etc over the years Lots of training that has been done And I actually think that there's sort of a high degree of awareness of how to use Um indicator data in planning that allows for you to write a grant application or to bring funding in so there's actually I think already readiness um In communities across the state and in sectors To have this type of conversation and it's typical that you would Facilitate a results based accountability exercise to establish indicators by starting with outcomes So it would actually be atypical for us to host a stakeholder engagement meeting around indicators that didn't revisit the outcomes But we had suggested that it would be possible if there was not Openness in the state in the legislature for revisiting the outcomes You could have a conversation about indicators without revisiting the outcomes But it would certainly be appropriate and advised that you would have the outcome conversation And then the indicator conversation and I think what ultimately could happen is that the government accountability committee um Promote those however, they're facilitated whether it's state employees who facilitate it or legislators who facilitate it or or a paid consultant Those conversations could be facilitated in a planned way Recommendations could be surfaced to the government accountability committee and the government accountability committee could recommend a change to statute Like s95 had done And then has the capacity and the ability to change indicators without statute So that's how those recommendations could be filtered through back to you Yeah, so any other people weigh in here because I really am struggling with this because when I Think about a public engagement. I don't think about necessarily about working with Groups of nonprofits people who are organized and stuff. I think about the public that joe schmo down the street and how and How he weighs in on what an outcome is and and So I struggle with that in terms of How you How you come to any consensus around Around some outcomes when you have 620,000 people who Have a different idea of what so anyway, anyway that I'm just I'm I am struggling with this one. So senator columnar Thank you, madam chair. I think I share your struggle. Um It took me I think I've been on gag for Probably this is the third term. So going on five years And it took me after that time to even understand What the difference was between an outcome and an indicator So I'm not sure that and I don't know that there's an average Vermonter But if you spoke to a bunch of average Vermonters, I'm not sure how much information Or useful kind of input they could give To an outcome if you look at the outcomes, they're all designed as very aspirational goals. It's Well, let me read Apple pie and mom Yeah, um Vermont has a prosperous economy. Vermonters are healthy. Vermont's environment is clean and sustainable Vermont's a safe and welcoming place to live. Vermont's families are safe nurturing stable and supported I mean, Vermont has open effective and inclusive government. Those are all pretty wide 80,000 views of What we all would like to see I don't know what else you could add I guess I'm having trouble coming up with another outcome that That we don't sort of already have And the and the indicators can go down as deeply as you want Under each outcome, but I don't know what's the next outcome going to be I have no idea and it has to be one that Takes him takes into account all Vermonters or it really isn't it isn't very useful So I I know what senator wade's trying to say. I probably didn't Even come close to saying it as well as she did but I'm just sort of not understanding. I guess What we're going to do and then secondly, what do we do with s 95? Just put it on the shelf until the summer or I don't know We can do that. So senator rom when you help me understand here what In terms of the outcomes, what would be an outcome that would be a different Different kind of an outcome or a different I guess not an indicator but an outcome Let's let's take the example of what's happening right now vermonders feel included and engaged in their government To hell and they feel their voices are heard, you know, we right now what we're talking about is how transparent and You know inclusive are we in how we articulate our own values as a state That is what is that stake right now is that if these are important to us at all If there's something we use to hold government accountable Then people deserve to buy in and weigh in Before these are the the this is the moral compass for the state of what constitutes quality of life for vermonders But what you've just described is sounds like to me outcome number eight, right And then it is outcome number eight outcome number tell me reading outcome number eight Any well, okay Vermont has open effective and inclusive government So then then what you have to do is look at the indicators under there. What what? That's an aspirational That that's we're saying the same thing that you just said That that's that is the goal So how do we how do we measure? What do you say if people have not really had a chance to participate in the creation of these outcomes Drew has a Drew Um, there's just a couple things I wanted I wanted to name First of all, I think you were totally correct senator white to call me on my Defaulting to nonprofits and organizations as those who would participate in a stakeholder engagement process I want to just remind you that results based accountability is not just like a framework that has jargony language that we can use But it's also a tool that has facilitated community members who are not professionalized over decades now to participate in conversations about building A common agenda in a community for thriving and well-being and not just in and usually not in predominantly white settings And so results based accountability has been used through an equity lens to ensure that the voices of black indigenous people of color living in communities are Are creating the common agenda and are represented in it and so Like right now act 186 outcomes and indicators have the opportunity to be better reflecting the reality of Inequities and disparities and disproportionate Engagement with our systems and act 186 is not currently doing that in based on the indicators that are included in it We don't have deep insight into how the experience of 5 poc vermonious is different than the experience of white vermonious in the current report The outcomes every outcome should be for all vermonious That's how it should be and that's why we wanted to make some of the changes that are reflected in s95 And I think that we could see outcome language enhanced through a community process That would help ensure that the voices of all vermonious have been involved in the construction of that language We may not see them Very different like we may see recommendations that look pretty similar to what we have now, but it would have been A valued a valued a valuable process The indicators I think we would see substantially change through that process And it is a headache to imagine all the vetting that would need to happen But we're extremely well versed in how to do that. This is how we do community health assessments This is how we do this is how we create any set of recommendations Including that the racial what the racial equity task force has just produced So we're skilled in how to refine What is a broad array of recommendations into into a few but what we have not done is is Is Hosted convened a robust enough community stakeholder engagement process to say that act 286 actually does reflect a common agenda for vermon And I think that's that's what I'm hearing is Is a little bit of concern about what that process would actually look like Um, which I understand but also want to just reiterate we have done many times before that is in a lot of cases The business of the executive branch is to do that type of work um So I wanted to just name all of that So where do we go from here? I I'm still a little Confused about how we do it and I understand that And I and I do get that the indicators might Might change and that that that doesn't require legislation at all. So those indicators can can change and How we measure them and how we desegregate them or disaggregate them? I guess is the word Can can change I'm still a little confused about how we go about having the robust community engagement and Part of my concern is that we did have a public hearing on the Indicators and on the outcomes and only four people showed up I I mean we it was broadly advertised and So I'm concerned that we How we go about doing this and how we do it effectively and So allison and anthony you've been very quiet well I actually I served on the GAC for a couple years as well So I am very sympathetic to what you're going through jeanette because it was difficult to conform the language to learn the language that we ended up working with and I think that It's when you think about it through that lens of you know indicators outcomes, etc using that language It does seem kind of like uninteresting in some ways But I don't think that should necessarily stop us from going through some kind of public process Like he's just case just talking about and I think that You know one way to look at it would be to say we've got these outcomes and we're taking out on the road to see how well We're doing with these outcomes. Let's talk to vermanus about whether we're actually achieving our goals or not and I think that With all due respect Senator chairman white, you know, it's not your worry as to whether or not people show up or not. That's true It's war. You know what I mean I mean you because I don't think it has to come down to like this committee or the GAC committee like worrying about the turnout I think that it's up to people to turn out and it's up to those people who are used to doing these kinds of Not events. I wouldn't call them events But well for lack of a better word these kinds of events To make sure that people turn out and get some heads together and figure out the best way to approach it I So I understand what you're the difficulty that you're having with it because when I was on the GAC I felt the same way. I was like nobody's going to understand what we're trying to do here But I think that there has been a lot of change thought about government account about results-based budgeting and whatnot And I think that part of what we have to do as a committee this committee right here government operations is be willing to let go of it To some degree And say all right I mean Here's a group of people that let's form a group of people who want to find a way to bring this on the road and talk to people about it I don't think we have to figure that out as I'm saying and I think that you know, you could just let it happen So I I guess between Keisha and and drew I think I'm not saying they're the only ones But I think they both are heading in the right direction Well, I think it is the government accountability committee though that has to take responsibility for this I think that that is that is where this lies. It is not one person or two people It and if we're saying that we should hand this off to the administration to do That's fine with me, but I think it's the government accountability committee that is made up of eight people That needs to take responsibility For doing this Not this committee not this committee, right? I'm not so sure though I'm not not arguing, but I'm not so sure that it's up to the gack to actually like take this Take the road show out. I don't know if it's up to the gack to be involved and be part of the process, but I mean, I'm just not sure it's up to the gack to be the ones to stand in front of a room full of people and say This is what's going to happen tonight I just think that there's people who may be better equipped because they're a little bit outside the process to do that better Allison So I actually think That this is a perfect time to go and get the temperature of the state and to do public outreach by gack. I think it's absolutely the committee's jurisdiction to go out and engage with that we are looking at all sorts of systemic aspects that affect our well-being and I think this is a perfect public opportunity to reach out And and listen to the state about these big outcomes And where do we want to be? How do we want to be? How do we want people? How do we get? How do we accomplish these things? But first and foremost, what do we want for vermont and for vermoners? And It's no one community. It's rural vermont. It's urban vermont. It's bipod. It's it's seventh generation It's everybody. It isn't any one group. It's it's it and I think A public engagement opportunity is it's perfect timing now We're in the process of doing all this other work looking at ourselves And this is a you know, we haven't done we began this work in 2010 It's 2021. I think it's a great opportunity for for in a very proactive way to to take this to vermoners and say These are our outcomes at the moment What do we want? For the next 10 years 10 years, you know, ten or like it's a perfect timing And I think even all we've done with racial systemic racism and looking at ourselves. This is a key piece of looking at ourselves and Should inform so much of what we do and keeping ourselves on track. How does this make people happier? How does this make people financially more sustainable, how do we Keep our communities healthy And I think actually GAC partnering with the center on rural innovation might be a great partnership and I mean, I think I think actually this is kind of exciting and And and and a really rich opportunity for GAC Sorry Think about it chair. I guess I'm still struggling with A couple things and I'm not necessarily against I don't know that I want to do a road tour, but You know, you can do a zoom road tour from anywhere I forgot about that actually My fear is that if we do one or two of these Most of the people who come Are going to not be able to distinguish between an indicator and an outcome and we're going to spend all of the time Trying to separate them Because someone's going to say well, nobody's listening to me because That doesn't really have anything to do with an outcome. That's more of an indicator Okay, so that's one of my fears is that again, I think most people in the other world Don't understand the difference and are going to come prepared to offer suggestions about specific programs and specific measurements About an indicator The other issue is I still don't understand if somebody can give me an example of an outcome Right now That is not covered in the nine that we have Or that we couldn't plug in a whole bunch of indicators to show Whether that outcome was being properly Enhanced Well, you might get confirmation that they're great I mean, you might get confirmation that for the next 10 years. These are great outcomes Well, okay, but But it's every 10 years to get the to get sort of public affirmation Of those either it confirms it or it also maybe And I think you can frame it as And provide the clarity for people by providing a document That clarifies all that on the difference between Outcomes indicators and everything else Sorry So I'm perfectly happy to let s95 just sit. Um, I don't know about you brian. That was Um, we were told to do this. We're certainly not going to figure it out today And and have Have this conversation. I think in the government accountability committee First meeting this summer and have the conversation and say where Where do we go? How do we do this and your chair? So um, you you can set that conversation you and made up and um And kind of have the conversation with the committee members And say how do how do we do this? Do we work with the center for rural vermont? Do we work with Uh, do we have do we do a road show? Do we have um drew be the facilitator for the The road show do we have I mean how But I think it is a conversation that the the gap needs to have it's not it's not our Is not this committee's conversation even though there are three of us from this committee on gap It's gack. It's not this We're involved here only because of s95 That I I agree madam chair and I think sue zeller needs to be involved too But she's the one that puts together the uh the dashboards and all that stuff for people to look at to say, okay Do uh More people smoke than we want? Let's take a look and we can quickly see that or our vermont is getting more obese There's a way to find out, you know, it's it's those kind of indicators that To me always tell the story the outcomes are sort of like, oh, I wish that this would happen And they'd be really nice if it could and and you could keep going I guess about that but the the real Test is whether the population and level indicators Are are doing their job Asia so My sense has always been that nothing needs to happen legislatively for Agencies to disaggregate data by demographic so that we have better information What I am curious about is if they need funding to feel like they can do that appropriately and that feels like the jurisdiction of this committee to know If we are getting a huge infusion of one-time dollars to improve people's lives And help get people back to some sense of normalcy. Well, what is that and how do people define it and Who is left behind in that and we're not going to know any of that information Unless state government feels equipped to collect the data that it needs to answer those questions So that's what I'm saying feels missing I don't know if state government is ready to disaggregate this data and ask these critical questions That's why I introduced a state planning office bill But you know, I just don't know whose job that is to collect better data in the state Drew Drew had her hand that um, I would just in recognition that I think Senator white statement was useful in terms of closure and where the next conversation lives I agree that the government accountability committee does have responsibility for shepherding The process even if they bring others in to help facilitate it And I do think that s 95 at this point It makes sense to me that it be sort of shelved until we have we can say that we have community input And then to senator rom's point, I I think that state agencies and departments I can only speak for the agency of human services obviously are undergoing some internal Explorations to figure out what is our data collection capacity right now related to data about race and ethnicity and also English language learners And to what extent do we feel confident in our own Data and the data that we're collecting um from our community partners And that is a conversation that's filled with Oftentimes more chat more questions than answers, but it's still happening and I think would be useful for you to explore um In act 186 Well in act 186 the outcomes of well-being Um legislation We are more often than not looking at whole population level measures which have more to do with Data that we can get from national surveys um Often more often than our own programs and services But it might be worthwhile to ask the government accountability committee to take a Like do an assessment of the data sources that are currently included in act 186 and Which of those are are desegregatable now by race, which is what I understand suzella to be directing the executive branch to do for the next Act 186 report And I I I do want us to think beyond Disaggregating by race because We have real urban world divides here and we need to address that as well. This is not This should not just be about race This should be about our whole populations and how we are all of vermonters are faring I think absolutely Sort of Well layered on top of that. I mean we should have a standard way that we are constantly slicing and desegregating data to the And it should include a lot of values about what information we feel we need so that people don't get left behind It's demographic information. It's your family size. It's your income. It's your geography Your access to the internet I mean, you know, these are all really critical ways to understand how vermonters are able to access the economy access education access opportunity so That's where I would like to live on the government accountability committee Is what how do we make sure that the way we ask for information is Standardized and well supported to to know at this level where we are that we're not leaving populations behind And I think that that that has more to do with the indicators than with the outcomes that is the So Okay, so I'm going to suggest that we put s 95 get out your um Your push pin gale and stick it on the board For the time being and that the government accountability committee under the leadership of senator columnar Have this conversation at its first meeting with along with sue and drew and maybe a couple um A couple other other people who can help us Think broader, and I don't know who those are and they'll leave that up to the senator column or to work with Drew and sue and keisha and whoever to come up with That conversation What you you've got lots of resources who think big, you know, you've got paul castello You've got I mean you've got matt that and you've got paul castello You've got lots and all that research arm at the uvm and you've got lots of people who can help us think big about this Yep All right, I If I could just say I think with the one-time money I know we don't want to talk about appropriations, but we're getting a lot of one-time money and It would be it would set up state government so well if we set up data systems That you not like oh hey last time we had a crisis We gathered this information for a year and learned wow We've really left certain populations behind with vaccination or infection rate, you know, we We have to consistently collect data over time and we're not very good at that and if out of this ongoing pandemic we collect standardized data in the state and have systems to analyze it collect it share it um that are improved and agreed upon I think that's an incredible outcome for for vermin tears from this crisis I agree Yeah, thank you Thanks Thank you drew