 We are back. This is still Senate government operations and it is still Friday, February 25th, and most of the state is being hammered with snow, so the people are driving in their cars while they're testifying. I hope that you have your hands free because we would not want you to get in trouble. So we are going to go to, excuse me, S-250, and this might seem like a bizarre way of dealing with a bill. We have had a walkthrough of this bill. Ben has given us a walkthrough of the bill, and I don't remember the date, but he did. And the issues in it are all related, but pretty disparate, if that's what I want to say. So what we found in the past in dealing with bills that have a lot of kind of moving parts and a lot of things that aren't necessarily connected to the whole is to divide them up and to take testimony on discrete sections of the bill so that we don't have to keep jumping back and forth. And that might seem odd to some of you who aren't used to dealing with this, but our committee has found that it's very helpful to do it that way so that we can take testimony on one section, decide if this is something we want to go with, not go with, make changes, and then go on to the next section so that we don't have to keep jumping back and forth. So that is, so today what we're looking at is sections three, four, and nine of S250. So I hope that makes sense to everybody. And we also just for those of you who weren't with us when we did the initial walkthrough, section two is the whole section on qualified immunity. And as Ben knows, he's been dealing with that hours upon hours upon hours in the Judiciary Committee. So we're not going to take any testimony on that section at all because he's working really hard with the Judiciary Committee on that issue. And it was put in here, I assume just in case judiciary didn't take it up, there would be some vehicle for it. So that's the way we're going to proceed here. And so we have on our list again, quite a number of people to testify. And I'm going to start with section three, which is found on page eight. Okay, yes, at the top of page eight under section three. And anybody can weigh in on this section. I would like to hear, I guess, first from those most involved in training. And that would be I'm looking at my list here, Heather, and Chris, I don't know, Heather and Chris, how you're going to do this. Etan and Susanna. I think that that, but anybody, anybody else can weigh in once we hear from those people, if that's okay. And committee, if you have any suggestions for doing this in a different manner, just let me know. So if we can start with section three, which would change the number of training around, around fair and partial policing policy from four to 10 hours. So I would jump first, I believe to Heather. So Heather, if you would like to join us, we can't hear you. It's probably the snow. So maybe what we'll do is start with Chris until, and then maybe if you jump off and then come back in, it might clear it up. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Chris. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris, for the record, deputy director of the Vermont criminal justice council. I will be fairly brief in my comments relative specific to section three of the bill and relative to the draft, which includes 10 hours of fair and partial policing training as required by this section, which would be every odd number of years. And I think in conversation with council staff, trainers, the fair and partial policing committee are gap. And Susanna Davis, who was also on the council is that not speaking on their behalf, but having conversations with all of those folks is that I think that putting a number to any type of training just as a number for four hours is not necessarily the best option to go, but doesn't really give us what that content of that training is. And setting an hourly number doesn't allow us to actually involve the partners that we want to involve in fair and partial policing. And, you know, we've had conversations already with RDAP about their input as well as using the equity impact assessment tool. And we want to involve those types of tools in all of the training that we do here. So I believe that the 10 hours was more concerning to us than actually determining what is the best content for that training and delivering that and not just using a number. So that was the concern on the part of the council. And I see Heather's back. So maybe she might have other comments to that. Thank you, Christopher. Thank you. We still can't hear you. Are you over in Pittsburgh? Maybe that's the problem. Rutland is really being hammered. I'm the only one in Pittsburgh, but I believe Heather's comments that I'm getting from her that her audio is not working, that she doesn't believe that there's anything more that she wanted to add to that. Okay. So then what I think I will do is jump to Aton and Susanna to who are part of the helping to define the training and how it's implemented and how it's, um, what's the word I'm given? That's not the word I want, but anyway, okay. The curriculum? The curriculum? No, no, no. How the training is done, but it doesn't make any difference. Execution. Excellent. Yes. Execution. Yeah. Okay. Hi. I, my, one of my main comments is to simply agree very strongly with, um, Christopher and also I guess Heather about specifying the number of hours. I, I've spoken about this. I mean, I've spoken about this with Senator Rom Hinsdale as well. And we were both talking about the need to increase the number of hours of training. I, I am fully in agreement with that, but I also think that naming it and saying 10 is, I say as an educator, that's kind of iffy. Um, I do some of this training, um, at the Academy and it, there are days when, you know, I'm given six hours and at five we're really done. There are days where we go have six hours and we don't have enough time. It just seems best to sort of say something to the, I would say as a suggestion, um, that maybe the, uh, the fo, there should be a focus upon increasing, I don't know, intensity and amount of training around matters of fair and impartial policing. And I would leave it there, um, and just say that that, that ought to fit. Um, one of the things I want, I don't think we need to go into, I had a whole, I don't know who I thought I was talking to. I thought I was apparently speaking with people who, um, wouldn't think that we should do this, that there shouldn't be more training. So I have all these notes here that I'm looking at now that are completely useless. So let me simply point out, um, that that now that we have an expanded criminal justice council, um, that that matter of training should be left to that body, the amount of it, and it's to, it's also to its attendance subcommittees. Um, and again, I guess the language of the bill should say something about increasing the focus upon FIP, but leaving the substance and structure of that training to the academy and to the council and other stakeholders, vagueness in this instance, I think can be a handmaiden to appropriate this. So that would be my suggestion. Now, the one other thing that I do want to add here, and I hate to be Eor, even though that's been my nickname for years, but, um, as Eor, I have to say there are a couple problems here, and that isn't anything that we really can blame on anyone. There are so few SWORD members at this moment that putting in extra training now, new training, I should say, is difficult. And I say that as someone who is a completely true believer in training and education and certainly around fair and impartial policing matters. Um, but the problem is that we, there are, we're facing unprecedented staffing challenges, and it's very much impossible to pull people from public safety duties to intensely train about how to perform those self-same duties. It literally is a matter of taking people off the road in order to do this. And there are some problems with that. I did not understand that initially. I have come to understand it. I had developed a really, now I'm going to toot my own horn. Really exciting and brilliant training for the advanced trooper school on the matter of fair and impartial policing eight months after they had completed their training and had been on the road. Um, we were not able to do it when it was originally scheduled precisely because we couldn't take 10 people off the road at the same time. There was a question of coverage. There was a question of staffing. So in the end, a balance must be struck between what would be desirable and in some ways necessary. And what is possible? Um, that's reality and wishing isn't going to accomplish very much. I can tell you that VST is working both on recruitment and retention. Um, but not enough has moved in regard to these challenges of which I speak to allow for what would be absolutely the best. And I think that's really all I need to say to you. I know you've got a lot of people lined up. Um, and you need to hear from them. Thank you. I'm going to make a suggestion here that, um, I am looking at my notes from last time and, um, Susanna made the comment that it should be embedded in all aspects of training. And we might change this to say something like honor before all law enforcement officers shall receive training as required by this section that is embedded in all aspects of training. I mean, I just throw that out as a comment. Yes, Senator Rom Hinsale. Yeah. I mean, I don't disagree. So, I mean, I think eternal appreciate this section was specifically in response to concerns he raised about not having enough time. And, you know, I think there's always a compromise, whether it's on hours or content or, you know, whatever the case may be. I think that the concern I have the most and I've heard it echoed from other folks in law enforcement is pedagogy is that there are oftentimes when they are doing an online training, it's, it's non interactive. Um, you know, the whole point of this is to learn out loud. I think you can't really understand your own partiality and your own biases, unless you're learning out loud and asking questions that you feel safe asking that change your assumptions and change the way you think. And I have heard from law enforcement themselves that they have experienced it. It's it's ongoing, like, you know, online modules. And, you know, I'm concerned about that pedagogy because I don't think it helps someone with split split second decisions or changing how they interact with people. Yes. Thank you. And Eitan, did you have a response to that minimum jump to? No, I just clarification. I just wanted to Senator, you're talking about that the online stuff doesn't do what the in person stuff is doing. I think the only thing I'm wedded to is that pedagogy is so important in, you know, things around diversity and equity, not necessarily the number of hours. But if you had two hours of a deep conversation versus two hours of sitting on the line and looking at something that's going to be really different. Preaching to the choir. Preaching to the choir. So I'm going to jump to Susanna. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't actually have much to add here. I'm also a little bit ambivalent about the change in the number of hours. We know that it's an issue of quality, not quantity. We've heard many times that people like the officer who murdered George Floyd in 2020 had completed 40 hours of crisis intervention training in 2016 and did a use of force training in 2018, right? So it's not necessarily about logging the correct number of hours, but rather about making sure that it is quality instruction and that it's being utilized and reinforced and that it becomes so deeply embedded in everything that we do that you can't forget what you learned in the classroom because it's a part of the day-to-day work. And so if we can find ways to thread fairness and impartiality through all of the work, then effectively the full work day becomes the training every day. So the language that I suggested, does that help at all or does that just muddle it up even more? I think it does help. It really does help. And I would be very curious and very eager to participate in figuring out who and how we make sure it, to make sure who are the people determining what embedded means and what are the anchor, what are the benchmarks that we're using to determine that. That may be a process that's already existing and I don't know about it, but if it is not, then I would be very eager to volunteer to participate in helping to shape what does it mean for the board to be embedded. So maybe it's best to just leave it like not change it at all right now and just leave it as it is and have you and Aton working with the training with the Criminal Justice Council training to make sure that that happens instead of trying to be prescriptive here. Okay. Yes, I would. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to weigh in on this particular section? Dan? Thank you, Madam Chair. Dan Fengus writes in Democracy. I just want to make sure, embedding it obviously is the right way to go and it makes total sense, but I think a tracking mechanism and making sure that it's really clear that departments aren't just saying that they're embedding it and then it's just like, oh, it's in everything. So we don't actually have to list the ways that it's actually embedded and making sure that it's actually still being able to be tracked and that way, if the department or an officer does have a complaint, we can actually look back at the record and see if they are doing the embedding properly if they're things that they haven't done. So I think just making sure there's a mechanism for tracking would be really crucial for that. And I think that we could, I'm going to suggest that we can probably leave that detail up to Aetan and Susana to make sure that they, but you're right. Thank you, Dan. That's a good observation. Yes, Senator Romhansdale. So I just so appreciate Aetan and Susana and I think so often if things aren't written down, then it's really up to them to keep pushing and say, remember, we had this conversation. I just think they can't be their own accountability mechanisms. So I don't know if it's like, there is something about tracking best practices, reporting back like modules and how this is being implemented and modified, you know, but it's so often happens that people of color end up having to be their own, you know, drivers of this change. And I would hate to see that. Thank you. I think we have to put some faith in the Criminal Justice Council to come up with the system and figure out how to do the tracking of it because I certainly don't want to put language in here that tells them how to track. I don't know if that's Aetan, Susana, Heather, Christopher, anybody want to? Well, I was just going to remark that we, I think that I, Senator Romhansdale, so right. I don't even know how to like say how right she is, but she's so right. But I also think that we have the Criminal Justice Council. We have the entire academy. I think that there's a body of people here who are still to some degree untested because it's new. It's all new yet. And I think that the accountability, there's a lot of it there. There's a lot of it there. And I think that we simply all have to be aware that we need to do that with one another. Great. Okay. Thank you. So, committee, are we okay that we will change this section now? And next year, if any of us are back, we will ask for a report to come back on how the training is going and how they're accounting for the training as it's embedded, if any of us are back, or we'll leave a note for whoever is back on the desk. Okay. All right. So can we jump to section four, which is data collection? And I suspect that I'm going to ask first for Jeff Wallens, because I think that's where there you are. But to just walk us through how we do it, what this section four means. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with the committee today and provide a little bit of perspective of what I can for the record. My name is Jeffrey Wallen. I'm the director of the Vermont Crime Information Center. Currently, VCIC is responsible for the tracking of criminal incident data from arrest, arraignment, and conviction. And generally, that's understood in the most common language for that is the rap sheet. That's really what that's understood to be. So that's the data that we provide. And we make available to authorized individuals for authorized purposes. For data elements such as a, and I'm going to use the term use of force, which is common in the national discussion right now, those are inherently part of a criminal history record, because they may or may not ultimately lead to any kind of criminal charge, et cetera. If they do, then that information and becomes part of the individual's criminal history record, but we don't currently at the VCIC level track this type of data. It may be something that individual agencies track themselves, and they may use something like the Valcor records management system to do that. And if agencies were interested in standing up a statewide collection or analysis tool, particularly as it might interface with the federal use of force program would certainly be willing to partner with them on that. We do not currently track anything in the centralized manner here at VCIC with regards to incidents that may or may not lead to criminal charges. Okay, well, that was pretty clear. So I think then, does anybody have any questions for Jeff, or should we jump to Commissioner to find out? Oh, I don't. I think he's gone away. Yes, Senator Romhinsdale, so that we can find out how currently the information is collected and where it's kept. Yeah, I mean, I guess my question is, but you could, right, like there's nothing if that was, if it was a directive, you could collect that information and you could have demographic information about people who might have been the recipient of that force. Well, we typically currently, I want to be careful here because certainly anything is possible, you know, with data collection efforts. The question is where is the best place for that information to start? We certainly don't collect information on victims or anything of that nature. So we don't really have any kind of mechanism to track or collect or house that type of data. Again, I would think that likely the role for VCIC, the Vermont Crime Information Center, excuse me, for anything of this nature would be to provide some assistance and expertise on agencies and how to gather that data to leverage systems that may already be using. I mean, then how to interface those and in a collective manner, but I would be somewhat concerned about us standing up a brand new data collection effort, which is not really related or adjacent to anything we're currently doing. Okay, so I think that maybe we lost the commissioner. I was hoping that he could tell us how this data is currently collected. I know that one of the, one of the things that has recently happened is that all the law enforcement agencies, I believe, are now using VALCOR, so they at least are using the same system. But does anybody else care to weigh in on this section on, and even if you don't know exactly how we do it currently, if you'd like to just weigh in on what is being proposed here, that would be good if anybody, looking around to see who un-mutes themselves. VALCOR? Yeah, I'm happy to jump in. So for the record, VALCOR Schilling, obviously director for the ACLU of Vermont. And I just want to say overall, as we look at this bill, I know we are not looking at all the sections, but just we're very supportive of this legislation and the intent behind all the different sections. But speaking specifically to the data collection piece, this is something that we'd be supportive of. I mean, if there's details to be worked out, we're happy to know more about those. But having more information about how law enforcement is conducted in our state is essential. We've seen recently, especially in the correction system, how essential that has been as we've gone through the Justice for the Investment project. And as we have better information about how we conduct law enforcement throughout the state, we can make better assessments of what changes might need to be made, what policies put in place are being effective, and how those policies are working. Especially we've seen from this traffic stop data that since it's been collected, we've been able to see bias in these traffic stops across the state. We've been able to then work to try and address them, especially being able to go look department by department. And you can address problems until you know they're there. So just we'll quickly say we're in support of this language and in this section. And of more data collection in general, and making that available to decision makers in the public to have a better understanding of how their government and those tasks with promoting the public safety are operating. So those are our comments on this. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions and I don't know where to direct them. I guess because I do know that we need to have some consistent data and that we need to have data collected and that we need to then we need to collect the data and measure what it is we want to know. Not just collect data for the sake of collecting the data, but so that we can measure what it is we want to and then how we use the data once it's collected and who has access to it. But I be unfortunately, I'm not sure how to go forward here now because the devil is in the detail and we need to know if this is the way we want to do it or not. I just do have a question, for example. And I'm not sure how it works. So I don't know what I'm asking here is on the first part of it, it says that they shall collect data concerning roadside stops and law enforcement encounters resulting in officer involved death or seriously serious bodily injury. And then this is what should be collected, but we don't know if there's an incident involving death or serious bodily injury until after it happens. So then we can't collect the data. So are we saying that in every instance, whether or not there's death or serious bodily injury, this is the data that should be collected in in every stop or every encounter. So because how can you collect it afterwards? I don't know. So I'm just asking these questions about how this would work. I mean, I'm sure there's a lot of paperwork to do if there's death or serious bodily injury as a result of an interaction with an officer. So I guess like them not knowing just struggling with that. But I understand we don't have law enforcement here to talk about what happens now. I just can't imagine that they don't have to keep some paperwork on hand from that kind of incident. And they're already supposed to be routinely collecting demographic information from a visual and, you know, approximate assessment. Yeah. Yeah. And I get that. My I just wonder is if we're already collecting all the data, why do we need to specify that they need this data if there's an incident involving that? I mean, I don't know if they collect age, gender and race of the driver on all in all instances. They're supposed to. On all in all instances of wouldn't have data if they don't know. I'm not talking about just traffic. Oh, this is just traffic stops. No, this is all law enforcement encounters. Okay. So yes, this is the whole data if they didn't collect that information. So then you couldn't collect it after the fact. I mean, I guess that's the concern I have is how how this actually would work. Are we going to are we saying that we should collect all of this data for every encounter? Just in case there's I because you can't if there's an incident that you couldn't have anticipated when the traffic stop was made or the encounter happened. But you weren't you weren't you didn't collect the data because you didn't know there was going to be an incident? Then how do you go back and collect the data afterwards? That I guess those are some of the questions that I have about the way and maybe Ben maybe Ben has some knowledge of how this works. Well, hi, Madam Chair, Ben Novogrowski from the Office of Legislative Council. I don't have direct knowledge of the procedures that that occur when there is an encounter. But just as a point of clarity, the first part of this section is already in existence in law. What is E subdivision 1A? This was just changed really for the the designations of it. But it's new subdivision B. And this is just the law enforcement counters where death or serious bodily injury occurs. So it's not all law enforcement encounters. So just as a point of clarity there. But, you know, I think that that question would probably be better directed at someone that works at a law enforcement agency or a DPS. Okay. Yeah, that I guess that's my concern is if we're already collecting it at every roadside stop, then that I understand we are. But I doubt that we're collecting that at every encounter. And you don't know if there's going to be an incident when the initial encounter is made. So you don't you don't go to a a domestic violence and get everybody's age and gender and race and record it. And yet there could be a serious incident here that results in death or serious bodily injury. But you haven't collected the data first. So how do you go back and collect the data afterwards? Those are my questions, not questioning whether we need the data, but how how it actually works in real life. So I guess maybe since we have no one here to address that. I can chime in quickly and hopefully try and help clarify and if there's any misstatements here, I hope someone will correct the record afterwards. But I believe that as part of the new use of force law that was passed and then the rules and policies that were implemented along with that, that there is reporting on use of force incidents. So anytime that the force is being used, I believe that there's data being recorded about that. And so I would imagine that if there is an encounter where death or serious bodily injury is resulting, there would be some sort of force being used. And I think there's already some form of reporting requirement for that. But I will let someone else who's more directly involved speak to that. But I think that this is something where they might already be collecting some of this data. And this might be adding on top of that. But okay, thank you that that helps. But I have one more question for Ben. If C, if A is already or C, no, that's an E, E one is already in the language. We haven't added anything there, right? Correct. Okay. And it does say law enforcement encounters resulting in officer-involved death or serious bodily injury. Why do we need B? Because it just repeats the same thing. Well, and just to clarify, so that that portion law enforcement encounters resulting in officer-involved death, that is a new addition. I know before it was just roadside stop data that was being collected. But in online 15 on page eight, it says and law enforcement encounters. It doesn't it isn't limited to roadside stops. And then in B, the whole thing is repeated. Well, so that was that's really just the construct. So it's it's adding that in E. And then in subdivision B of subsection E one, it's listing the type of information that would be collected in a law enforcement encounter involving death or serious bodily injury, which is not currently in the statute. No, I'm sorry if I'm not understanding. Yeah, I'm not I'm not being clear here. So E one says in all roadside stops and in all law enforcement encounters that result in death or serious bodily injury, right? But it's not okay. So not just roadside stops. That's just it says it right. It says online 15 roadside stops and law enforcement encounters. So that's that's there that it's already covered all law enforcement encounters that result in death or serious bodily injury are covered now in E one a. So why do we need B because they're it's just repeating what's in a. Am I wrong about that? We're talking on page nine lines five through eight. Yes, it's beginning on line five and going through line eight. No, on page 10. I mean page nine. Yeah, are there on B on B on line 10. It simply repeats everything that's in a I don't and I don't understand why we need that. I don't see where B is. So he is on page 10 on line four. Correct. Well, I have a different I have a different version then it is if you look at section four there's E one a and there's a E one a covers all traffic stops and all law enforcement encounters that result in then if you go on and it lists for a bunch of things then if you go on to be it it repeats exactly what is right it it's for law enforcement encounters versus roadside stuff. No, no, no, go back please go back to E one. Yeah, and it says both there. You're right. It says both. So why do we need to repeat it in B? That's, you know, I think that's why they're all the same. It does my question. Yeah, that's a good question. That's my question. Why do we need to repeat it if it's already covered there? Well, it could be consolidated so it's it's it's drafted so it's more concise. The difference where it's just the roadside stop data referencing the driver as opposed to the decedent or the injured person. So there is that small change but that could be changed, you know, through drafting it doesn't have to remain that way if it would be clear in a way. You're saying because in there it says driver and in the other one it says injured person. That's the difference. Correct. Okay, okay, I'm okay then. It just seemed repetitive to me to have to repeat the whole thing but there is slight difference and it's probably easier to separate it but yeah I would take out law enforcement encounters in the first one then because anyway it doesn't have anything to do with roadside stops or drivers but it just sets up the whole section that it's going to address both those things. I think. No, okay that was the intent behind the drafting is that it just sort of sets the stage and then the one section the subdivision A covers roadside stop data subdivision B covers law enforcement encounters. Sorry to be so dense. No, no it's. No, I'm pretty much okay with all those collecting all that data. I think we do need to have some information about how we use that data to help set policy or and I don't know if we need something in here about that or not. About how it's shared with us? No, not how it's I guess just some kind of a it always if I always think of that we don't want to just collect data that we want to be able and how is the data to be used and I in helping both us to set policy and law enforcement to do their training and so I don't know it should be publicly available so that the public can hold them accountable. So that is that a question for Jeff is how that how's that data analyzed and how's it been applied? They don't collect this data. If you remember what Jeff said he collects data on criminal records not on incidents. This is not necessarily criminal but I thought VCI was held all the records. No, he just testified that he didn't I heard but I thought for someone reason that like public records that they had all the criminal records but these aren't necessarily criminal records. Right, they're just Madam, Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt Mike, Shirley, the public safety is letting you know that I'm on now a staff member send me a note. And I think we got I think I got my questions answered. I don't know if we need more I'm a little bit torn here about and I apologize for taking all that time just because I'm apparently so dense. No, you're not so dense. There's nothing dense about you. This is all kept in Valcor, right? I mean so Valcor is aggregating all this data that as the pull as each department reports it after an incident, after an encounter, after a roadside stop. And who oversees the Valcor data? So a couple of fragments from just the last two minutes that I've been able to hear. Senator Clarkson, you are correct, ECIC maintains criminal history information which consists of records of criminal charges, convictions, and outcomes but only things that result from criminal charges. The computerated dispatch and records management system which is named of Valcor maintains the records of all law enforcement responses and counters reports, things of that nature for all but two agencies in Vermont. There are two who have opted not to use that statewide system. Not knowing exactly what fields of data you're talking about. I don't have any additional context to say what's collected relative to the discussion but my sense is there's probably an intersection with use of force here and I can report at the moment that of the 73 agencies on Valcor there are at least 14 who are using some alternate mechanisms to track use of force. So I would, I'm gonna take a poll here of what we want to do. I would because I think there's we need to spend more time on this. I think that there, Senator Rom-Hinsdale suggested that this should all be public information so that people can be held accountable. I'm not sure that we're doing a lot of identifying of the victim here and the driver and I'm not sure if all that information wants to be public. It should be the age, race, and gender of the victim. I'm not sure that we that that is but we need to have this further conversation I believe and it's almost 4 30 on Friday afternoon and we haven't heard from people on this section yet and we haven't even gotten to section nine. Which is the false confessions or confessions based on false information. So what I'm going to do is suggest that we might want to look at 155 and that we come back if we have 155 off our plate we can devote the substantial block of time to 250 and address this and the remaining sections. Is that okay to everybody? I mean I'm willing to stay here but I have a 4 30 so I would love to do 155 and come back to this because I think we have to figure out yeah I think there are a lot of questions that we have to answer and then we can make then I can make sure that we get the appropriate people in here like and maybe somebody can think about drafting something around and I believe that this was one of the things that when we were talking before with Susanna Davis about collection of data was and also with Aton about how why we collect the data how what are we trying to measure and how do we use the data and and so that we could if we can incorporate if there are already policies out there around then that then that's fine but if there aren't then how do we maybe incorporate that into here yeah. I was fixing my hair but I absolutely err on the side of data liberation and making it publicly available and I think as we start as Falco mentioned and others we have made the grave mistake of thinking we don't have issues in Vermont because we haven't been collecting certain pieces of data and making them publicly available and there are as we've learned over the course of hearing Aton's report and others some really devastating disparities I mean almost as many black kids are arrested as white kids in Burlington even though they show up nowhere near that amount of the population black young men are represented 10 times more than their their percent of the population in those charged as youth offenders in Chattanooga County so you know I we have learned some things that are so so dramatic and people have a right to know that so that matches their feeling of what they're experiencing and their ability to have true participation in their democracy. Yeah I I agree that there is that aspect but I still want to have more conversation around what what is public and what isn't I mean we just passed a bill that said that um arresting agencies can't release the names of youth um and um or any identifying information and and I so I questioned somewhat about why I mean anyway I think we need to have this conversation more so we will schedule this for um kind of initially Gail and I have been trying to work on a schedule and it is really hard to do because of that uh next week's schedule but I think that we Madam Chair yes it's currently scheduled for Wednesday March 9th at 315 oh okay and I have sent out invitations so I think everybody on this call has probably gotten an invitation okay great okay I guess we have a date so great all right thank you thanks Ben and Madam Chair just one question so before um this it seems like with section three that the committee indicated that there is no change to the law that needed to be made should I just strike that um and I could circulate a new draft before the next meeting you can if you want but if that's the only change I don't think I would um bother doing that until we go through the other changes and additions and stuff so thank you Ben and I think as Madam Chair if I could uh I think it would be great to have a chart of what data we do collect where we collect it when it's what aspects of it are released I mean Ben if you could do a a chart of of the of the changes and and some of I think that would help us uh as we deliberate in the week we come back on this do you see what I mean it would be great to sort of have one place where we have all of what we collect who it's who gets it how you know what are the rules around its release um and how are we using it currently I mean because I was thinking as we were having this conversation that of course the council also has data because it it it it does it it has data on officers that are are are being uh but I can't think the right word but reprimand is what I'm thinking of or I mean there's there's a lot of data that we have around law enforcement that I just love to know how you know as we go into this conversation how it's collected where it's collected where it's housed when it's released I think that would be helpful how it's used currently I we can probably do that that's a pretty broad um broad request here but I see Mike shirling has his hand up thank you madam chair uh just briefly for uh committee consideration as you uh go away for the break and ruminate on this I've not seen anything in the draft that outlines any piece of data that isn't already collected yeah and isn't already publicly available in some form or another and going back two decades uh we've worked with the u.s. department of justice on uh illuminating disparities in youth contact with the justice system there's been a number of reports that have been done and made publicly available and have been written about uh in uh in the media the media consistently requests reports out of our a computer a dispatch and records management system about um types of contact types of use of force um there's a host of things um that have been eliminated over the years and just to remind the committee where we're going with the new system that is just two months old now um is to create public facing dashboards and publicly available raw data for researchers to uh to look at it's going to take some time to get those things stood up because they're they're the next iteration next evolution of the system in our our data dissemination efforts but they are part and parcel of what we view as transparency which historically has been the ability to query and look at reports about what government does and less so about having um this robust data sets available so these are all things that are in in motion now and um and have been for a really long time so i would encourage you to uh right uh to really get into the weeds on what is available rather than it can you email that data to the committee today or the data there there's a website that you can go to pull web it up uh senator i can't email you a multi-million line uh data set what i'm saying is the ability to query data and create reports like those that you're interested in exists um and is done on a regular basis in response to a whole bunch of different things whether it's research occasionally legislative inquiries media inquiries um it is a it's a it's a normal part of day-to-day business in government in general but in in policing more specifically so i would suggest that um we do some more research on our own and then we come back on the ninth and we will um look at this more and see what if what if anything there is that we need to do and i think that we'll make sure that we have the commissioner and aton i know that you your committee and i get the uh initials wrong it's rp ad it i got the initials right i just didn't get them in the right order no no actually it was the reverse it's rd ap yeah i knew i got them yes them right but not in the right order so and because you're involved in collection of data and reporting and stuff so we'll make sure that um your um with us and everybody else who who wants to come and um we'll send the invitation again to all the people that were on the list for today to make sure and i did send i know that um mark he said they weren't going to weigh in on this today but i did send tell him that we would be taking it up next wednesday and he would be welcome to attend not next wednesday but i mean that yeah when we come back thank you okay so i'm going to suggest that we once again jump our topic here and i see amaran is with us and has a new draft and thank you to everybody um and we're going to 155 back to 155 okay okay do you have draft 2.1 either posted or in your email it's post gail has posted it excellent all right so i will skip down just to the changed sections the first one is on page 2 changing the name to the office of community collaboration and empowerment and then the next page is down on page 4 once again correcting the name to office of community collaboration and empowerment next change i believe is down in the full discussion of the office which begins on page 11 i believe yeah bottom of page 10 page 11 section 5284 office of community collaboration and empowerment subsection a creation the office of community collaboration and empowerment is created within the agency subsection b duties responsibilities the office of community collaboration and empowerment shall the first three are the the duties that were already in this bill four five and six are the new subdivision four create a system to periodically review all agency policies that includes the use of the equity impact assessment tool subdivision five define the relationship between the office of community collaboration and empowerment and the other offices divisions and departments within the agency and six establish organizational structures that allow for meaningful community participation any questions on those before i move into the the last language here no subsection c is the report section on or before november 1st 2023 and every two years thereafter the office of community collaboration and empowerment shall report the house and senate committees on government operations and on judiciary and the list of stakeholders identified pursuant to subdivision three of subsection b on the office's progress and implementation of the duties and responsibilities identified in subsection b of this section the only comment i have is it says every two years and i think the what i had thought was that it would be annually for two years so it isn't every two years they report it's that for the next two years they have to report i see okay so they would file a report on 23 24 and 25 okay i should be able to fix that pretty easily did did other did everybody else understand it that way yes to get us as we started yeah okay that makes sense i apologize no we were a little scattered okay i'm going to go off camera and fix that and then i'll be right back okay great right other than that does anybody have any issues nope um hand up yep commissioner shirling is that that's an old hand or a new hand i'm old and it's an old hand and i i did get a note from senator polina who even though he isn't here said that he was okay voting for this bill maybe but i think it'll still go down as as oh one yeah yeah it will be it he won't vote but he was he was prepared to vote for it he could always come back online oh i don't want to interrupt his oh he may actually need that moment to escape no by the time we get a hold of him and he answers his phone and maybe he's having wonderful romp with his grandchildren and you know we don't want to bother him and here's amaran back again i'm back um may i screen share yes please can you see my screen yes yes okay so i've changed the timing to read honor before november 1st 2023 and annually for the two years thereafter yep perfect excellent okay so this will then become uh draft number 3.1 3.1 okay yes senator colomar i'm ready to move okay i would move that the committee vote out draft but the amendment to s 155 contained in draft 3.1 because it is a strike off yeah so are we ready to vote yeah i will say that i will say that um this bill has gone through a lot in the over the past four years and it has constantly been made a stronger bill because of input from people so i i think that um we're we're at a good point i hope others agree yeah i do and once again your vision for this has helped steer it in that direction okay are we ready for the vote well i'll just say that i would i still have a lot of concerns that not about what is in the bill but what's not in the bill after a major reckoning around racial justice and policing in this country i think it could have been a more visionary proposal and bill i think the way the public was engaged we heard was not as meaningful as a lot of people wanted it to be um i would rather know that pieces of s 250 will pass first because i believe that to have an office of collaboration and empowerment you really need to have data you need to have strong policing mechanisms in place you need to have measures of accountability and you need to listen to people um but i am going to vote for this bill in the good faith that we will continue to take up s 250 and deliver meaningful reforms that make a difference to people around how they engage with law enforcement and their own sense of community safety thank you and i think that it isn't just s 250 i think it's ongoing and that there are other other bills and other reports that we need to um look at when we come back um to continue and i keep going back to 124 i don't remember what the act is but s 124 which was this kind of a comprehensive bill that did a lot of things including changing the criminal justice council and the um disciplinary procedures and decertification procedures and so i think that we need to we need to continue our work i just don't want to forget that you know the only black woman who testified today said that that process failed her and that unless these we check on our legislation and make sure it's actually working for the people who are most impacted who it's intended for then we are patting ourselves on the back without making a true difference for people yep you are right we want to make a true difference for people okay you're right are we ready for the vote yes senator clarkson yes senator collin one yes myself senator rumpinsdale yes senator white yes and senator polina is absent so that's a third of four zero one i further move that we vote out draft 3.1 of s 155 as amended senator clarkson yes senator collin one yes senator rumpinsdale yes senator i'm senator white yes thank you four zero one four zero one okay um thank you so much amaran for all your work on this i know that you've been working on this for the entire time you've been in the legislative council so you're welcome and thanks to everybody who weighed in on this and um we will continue our work this is not the end we will continue continue our work and continue to and i don't want to say change the culture and the policing in vermont i want to say continue to work toward ever ever improving it's that it wasn't in terrible shape before and i i do need to make that clear that we we will continue to work on it but we're not it isn't um that it was so bad before that um anyway i don't never mind okay um i guess i will report this oh i think you should unless somebody else is dying to report it i don't see anybody on anyone down okay so committee i think that's it and um i would say as we come back in a week that if they're we're going to try and finish up all the things that we the things that we have left left over and um if people have um if any of you have people that are interested in testifying because we have to figure out that finish the ethics we have to address 250 um so on any of the bills that are left if you have people that want to testify please let me know yes and i'm uh trying to get pierson in case she wants treasurer pierce and tom uh galanka and any others to gather to move that uh that bill forward the divestment bill so i know that's my homework for the week yeah because i think if we don't have um suggested language by tuesday that well yeah i mean i i i know but i think we have to yeah no it's also i anyway we'll find out who's available who can work and what we're what we're doing okay okay thanks i'm thanks have a great lovely rest restoring week