 Okay, so next moving to 546, which is an actually interracial justice. My understanding is that Eric is not available until to do the correct. Coach, Martin, do you want to take a quick break? Do you want to play the groundwork or the kind of foundation of the next draft? What's best? Sure. I definitely want to have discussion on this and could point out the few changes that we did discuss the other day and that this does implement. Okay, so coach, is that the work for the two of you to talk about the changes and do a walkthrough now in Eric's absence? Okay, so make sure that everybody has, it should be draft 4.1 of H546. Correct. Everybody got it? You can go ahead and start, Martin. I'm just going to make sure I get a copy. The two biggest changes, one has to do with the makeup of the advisory panel. And the other has to do with the makeup of the division itself. And you can see, as far as with respect to the advisory panel, this draft would eliminate. Okay, Martin. Page seven and eight. This takes the number of members of this advisory council down from 20 to seven members, and it focuses on the communities that are impacted by the disparities, primarily in the criminal justice system. So it takes away all of the individuals who represented the organizations related to or providing information into the system. It eliminates them. I am noticing, I think that we still have one change that I don't see that Eric has put into this latest draft and we can ask them about that, that we wanted to make clear that these entities, I'm sorry, they're there. I apologize, page 10. This provides, it makes it clear that these entities are to provide somebody for the council to be able to consult with on an as needed basis. So that's, so we move the providers of the data into this liaison role and really kept the council itself focused narrowly. So we've also, you know, one of the in testimony with respect to advisory council we did, we did consider and we talked about the possibility of having expanding the current racial equity. There's a panel that is within the office of racial equity equity, I'm sorry, and we talked a little bit about whether we should just expand the role in the membership. And there are a couple issues with that number one is that the primary purpose of this advisory panel in the in this context of this bill is to provide some independent some independent oversight this was something very important to our gap. in its recommendations and putting it within the office itself as it currently is it's less independent reports directly to the governor instead of reporting to the, the director of racial equity that's one point. The other is, it's going to be the same number of people that we would be foisting on this already. So let's take a member panel let's keep this very focused on the data and the data analysis, not give them all the responsibilities because this other panel has a lot of different responsibilities. This would be very focused just on the data gathering aggregation and analysis so so that's, that's why we put this where it is but would love to of course before we jump on to the other component if there is any input. So what we've done here if this is coming along to where people want to see this go or, or if there's something else that needs to be done with that. I'll start because I'm sure you're waiting for me to go. Always. So what you did was you took a bunch of positions and you put them over here and you relabel them and do the liaison or cover you pronounce it, which you're still going to have a strong position, which you've already got set up with the administration through Susana to answer to the governor already so I don't see where you've done anything with that because Susana is already dealing with all these different groups anyway. You're, I'm going to, I believe I said this before I'm going to say it again, you're already reinventing the wheel that's already there. She already has herself and the governor has already approved to other positions that we cannot fill the third position now, we cannot handle the existing data, we do not share the existing data. So why we're doing this is makes. I understand what you're trying to accomplish but we're already doing it to as much as can be handled right now and we're making progress, not near the progress that needs to be done, but we, we are really rushing things through. I already have Susana there. And I still, which, you know, what is her. I'm skipping out here her title is that the head of the racial executive director of racial equity. Yeah, thank you. So, I mean, you're doing a whole new bill on something that's already set up. I don't get it and I don't support it. I, and I appreciate and I respect what you're trying to do and I want to make that perfectly clear. But that's my, that's my opinion, you already got everybody included in this to begin with, we know we have a situation we've had a situation. We've made strides on it and we're going to continue to make big strides on it we want to make Vermont a welcoming state, a welcoming community, and, and, and to grow. So, in some ways, I think this is going to work against what you're trying to do. So, can I just want to make sure I fall in terms of when you said that you said in this draft things were pretty much just moved over, are you referring to on page 10. These are liaisons, which are as as needed, you know, liaisons as as needed, as opposed to that what you're referring to as opposed to members of a like originally was was the council. Yes, because they're already going to be involved they're not going to go anywhere anyway they want to be heavily involved in this so I did which, in my mind, is just rename them and, and to go and do the same thing. Did those people eliminated from the council. From going to 20 to seven those 13 positions I'll call them there. They don't have as far as I understand they don't have a vote as far as that council goes anymore, and they're going to be considered more like witnesses. And they don't have to attend every meeting it's right it's at the request of the advisory panel the council to request their participation and input. And they don't have a voting, like you say and they're not responsible for putting together the reporting that this that the seven members for community members. Correct. I don't know what the change in the size of the, the council does for the cost, or is the cost still centered on the, the data administration. I see those members moving 13 people on that should have affected that minor. Yeah, really minor. The most of the individuals who are the late liaisons would, this would be part of their regular job they wouldn't get per diem. And the change in the cost is only taking the two legislators off. So it's the two legislators times the per diem times the 12 meeting so so it doesn't change. Yeah, so the appropriation is still mostly for that data management for the data management and exactly. I thought we were going to have the fiscal note today but it's going to be done any day that will really spell out what the per diem cost is, and what all the components of the cost it's going to be presumably it's going to be less than 960,000 which is in the bills. But we should see that so hopefully. Yeah, that's the goal. Yeah. I hope I'm getting the right names for these panels and boards. So the commission is a five person commission. No, the council, the council is it's 17. No, no, no. What used to be called the Bureau. Oh, yeah, that's that's the separate that's not the second part which I hadn't really addressed yet. Okay, okay. So so based and I can jump on to that and then we can. That was under the impression I thought I heard you say five member and that was under the impression that that had gone back to a three member. Yes, it has and you'll see that and let me see the last page, page 12. Yeah. So where it's one full time what's called the division lead and two full time analysts. And we heard from Kristen McClure that it's a data analyst and the data steward, right. And the lead would also be in charge of administrative type issues with respect to the council. I think it's like someplace along the way I heard that, and I don't see the language here, but it that it's going to start at three and if they need to expand to five or is this set at three. There's language that we have for them to look at it not necessarily to expand but to see if they have the right resources from what we heard from testimony there's a lot more upfront work and in fact the staff could go down. You know, once they've set up the communications between these various systems, they've done the data dictionaries, they've, you know, running more smoothly than, then, then supposedly it will, it will go down and that's what the two or one correct. And I'm pretty sure that's what Kristen McClure had testified. Is it going to be language that says that. I mean, knowing government the way I know government. Usually things don't get cut back very often, but I do appreciate the, you know, going from the five to three certainly. Physically, I mean, it's certainly better and, and I think three in Vermont is probably going to be more than enough, you know, when, you know, when I think of places like Connecticut have three there. I think the Connecticut, we'd have to find out a little bit more information but I might understand they have three for the ongoing, they're already, you know, they've already gotten past the startup okay heavier. But on page four there was language we put in there that asks for a report on the structure and staffing levels it does not say that they should go up or should go down, but that we need a report from from the division. So that any future staffing adjustments, we would, we would make that determination depending on the reports right and I can tell you for sure that the costs at ADS that the agency of digital services, which includes a half time project manner and then a database administrator and this I think all part of person of course testimony that that's a one and a half to two year period of time, so that's not going to be an ongoing cost, the part of ADS. And one more. So that 960,000 that was in the original fiscal note. Is that does that include a five member again Bureau. That'll, that'll be reduced by two to full time which I'm going to guess is going to be in a $200,000 range. Presumably. Right. Well, we, you know, that's, that's the reason we wanted the updated fiscal note. You know, so that we're not presupposing. And we have an accurate figure before we actually even vote. As a committee. That wouldn't be fair to any of us. But the adjustments have been made. And that's part of the reason why we asked Kristen to come back and Susana to speak very directly about what implementation of this new division would look like up to that point. It was based on information we had gotten from other reports. You know, so it's, it's, it's honing in on it. And I think we're getting closer every day. And one more question is that the information collected. I remember I heard something that it's not going to be somewhat. So. The division will be receiving what's called identified information. So you'll be able to, you'll be able to see which person's attached to the various documents. That's a public portal and it should even say in the bill. The information that's on a public website or portal is called de identified information so that it's not identified with the person is personal information is redacted. Correct. Okay. It's higher level information summary type. Okay, but the general information that statistics maybe percentages maybe derived from is going to be available. And remember, those were based on the testimony that we got both from Kristen McClure. Talking about the sieges, you know the federal related information security piece that we actually pay extra money for to ensure that that and security is maintained at that level. And then the other component that they came up was from the archivist from her testimony. But I think that the combination of folks between the ADS and the archivist, and then we did get extra information from ledge council around freedom of information as well so that plays into it as well. So we've got all of the security minds working together to ensure everyone's safety. So, yeah, Alicia. Yeah, quick question because I'm on page four section 5013 data governance and maybe I'm reading it wrong but I'll put the vision one there any data or records transmitted or obtained that are exempt from public inspection or copying and the public records that shall be exempt and remain confidential to the extent required by law. So, is that we were saying like, we're de identifying information before it's public or are we saying that this information is not public period. That's, that's tripping me up. I have a real issue with not having any kind of transference on that date I don't want to identify information. Let me be like, sure, I don't want to identify information that that but there is this like if I burned any courthouse mask profile they be identified as they hand it to me. They take out the slip of paper the Scott Social Security or any other things are not public, then they hand the file to me. Is that what this is saying, or are we saying that no data that is transmitted or obtained is going to fall into public records. I'd let her go Eric. I don't know if that's a shorty at that extent required but let's see. Yeah. Hi Eric. Perfect timing perfect timing. Hi there. How are you everybody. Thank you. Hope you're well so Eric page four. Line 16 that language. Do you need Felicia to restate her concern or. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind sir I caught the end of it I'm not sure I caught the from the very beginning sorry. No worries. Yeah. So my concern is, and maybe it's just my lack of familiarity with this section of law. So I'm just curious, any data or records transmitted or obtained by the division that are exempt from public inspection or copying shall remain exempt and be kept confidential to the extent required by law. So I'm just curious on two things, which of these records that are going to be transmitted transmitted or obtained are going to be exempt. And number two, what is the extent required by law for confidentiality requiring these records. Are we just de identifying the information, or are we only allowed to say like, we have 500 files that we received from such and such an agency, the information within these files confidential. So I'm curious like what level of information is complex on me to stay identifying are we holding information entirely. And then which of the records being sent to the division are going to be exempt. Right. Yes, thanks for for the repeating the question so yeah I think I follow it and the answer is that this sentence does not change anything that would currently apply to any of those records. So the idea, before I look at the language, the idea behind the language and I, and this is originally drafted by Tucker Anderson our public records attorney for, and it's, it's been used in a couple of other contexts as well. When, when you what you want to do is to create a situation where you're not changing any of the public records law that applies to a given document, this is the language that you use. So let's go back to your example of the 500 documents. Everything turns on how those documents are treated with respect to public records law under current under their current status with whatever law enforcement agency they came from. So let's say they were at the Department of Public Safety or wherever they were. They are governed by as public records they're governed by the public records act and some of them will be confidential and some won't, depending on whether existing exemptions apply. And, you know, that's would be up to the each individual agencies public records officer to make those decisions and that sort of thing happens all the time but you know whatever that law is that the idea here is to say that's still the law in other words, by transferring them to the division. Nothing changes. The idea is that if they were confidential under the law, as it applied to them when they were sitting with the Department of Public Safety, then they stay confidential. If they were public, when they were sitting over there with the division of public and sorry the Department of Public Safety, then they'll be public when they come to the to the division. That's the whole idea is not to change anything so that this statute or bill I should say will not affect whether the given document is public or confidential. But whatever the answer would be under the existing public records statute with respect to that document when it's sitting over there in the originating agency will continue to be the answer. And that's why also I sort of beyond that sentence. It goes on to say that the state or local agency that transmits the data still remains shall be the sole records custodian for purposes of responding to request in other words, the division is not going to respond to these requests. It's going to be that as if the document was still sitting. It's going to be that, whether it's DPS or local sheriff's department, whatever it may be, the same department that would respond to the request, if they hadn't sent it to the division will still be the answer and give their, their response if, you know, this all depends obviously on somebody submitting a public records request but assuming that's what happens. And they would give give an answer the same way they, they would if they still held on to the back. That helped to respond or no. It solves both the questions I asked but raises another one. And I apologize to belabor this. No not at all. Actually, while you're looking Eric I forgot to remind you to ask you to identify yourself for the, for the record I need to work on that I think because I see people's names I have not been as diligent and thank you for a clerk for reminding me about so. Oh, sure. Sorry. Yes, it's Eric dispatch for the Office of Legislative Council. Thanks. Yeah, sure. So, last question from that is, if the division makes a recommendation and uses the data that has been transmitted them in the making of that recommendation and references it. So, I would say, I go ahead and play a public records request to the division say please forward any data file use in the creation of this report. As subject by law. So the division look at all of the data they use and refer that request out to each sending local state agency, or initial originator of the document. So, are we by nature then making it incredibly cost prohibitive to have access to public records because I do believe that if there is a, there is provision in law for cost of preparing the public records can be paid by the requester. So if I asked the court for a document, they can charge me the printing. I asked my Tom clerk, they can charge me that hours it took them to get it together, plus the printing fee. Are we making it cost prohibitive for people to obtain records to the public records act, due to the labor time of going back to each individual state or local agency department of function for the records used in compiling reports from the division. I think if I if I understood the question correctly. You're asking more now about some data that the division say compiled on the basis of documents that they've received from multiple agencies, as opposed to say a request for a document itself that they receive from the agency is that kind of where you were going. Yeah, so let's say I put together a report and I have data from representative Norris and Milan, and Donald and not, and then you send me a record to classic I would like the data used to compile your report. And after those guys I've got nothing to do with it. And each of them charge you a fee for preparing the documents that you requested for me that I use in my reports gets the conclusion or foundation that I made the legislature. Am I by nature, making this cost prohibitive for an individual to have access public records that the division uses and their recommendations. That's an interesting question. I'm, you know, by not being a public records officer myself I'm not going to be able to probably answer with 100% certainty but sort of playing that hypothetical out. I do know that Tucker said, for example that if we're talking about the report. In other words, you know the report that was compiled on the basis of the data from the other people. The report is a record of the divisions. So they, they make a decision about the report because they compile in theory they compile that on the basis of the information that they got from the other agencies. So, they would respond to that. But if it's a, a, if the person who's requesting also wants to see the documents that the division relied upon when they compiled that report. Then I would think that the, although it's a may I don't is that so that's one thing that if you remember that was changed in response to I think a suggestion from representative Norris. I used to say shall I'm in line one and two of page five now. So, division has some discretion there about whether to direct to either to respond to a request itself, or to send it back to the originating agency. I don't know for sure, but it would seem that if they decide, for example, to say, okay, you know, they'll make whatever decision they're going to make about the report because that's their own document. But if they, if they do end up saying, well, go back to the, you know, the Department of Public Safety or the Sheriff's Department and such and such a county to get these documents because that's where we got them. I don't know, but it doesn't seem like there's a huge cost differential because that's what the person, the person would have had to pay whatever cost to the Sheriff Department to get it in the first place. So, it may not change anything but it could be that I'm missing something there. Yeah, it does say right above the division may direct the two lines previous 1920 and then onto the line one on page five. The local agency that transmits data or records, the division shall be the full records for purposes of responding to request for the data or records. So, I don't know if it seems that if a public records request it's filed with the division from an individual and the division then says back to the state and local agencies, please respond to this. The amount of time is going to be greater than if I just said hey DPS, can I please have such and such a record. And so we are increasing the workload and therefore increasing the time and costs of this request. And it just from a transparency point of view. I wanted to be the division puts out a report. And an individual says I'm going to look at that data and look at that report and I want to be an engaged member of the citizenry, looking at what my government puts out. And then they make it cost prohibitive to see these records. And that really is no transparency. We have put a gatekeeper on it. And that, that concerns me. So, I don't know if there's a way to solve that, but it's, that's, that's kind of what I'm chewing on is, I want there to be a high level transparency with this division. And that is the best way for not just the public but for legislators for our lawmaking process for every other entity they interact with to really have trust in the data trust in that division as a new entity they brand new entity to take that run. And to make it an arduous process to in a sense fact check is a problem. And I just, I want to find a way to fix that. So that's that's what I'm chewing on. I think this does point out something that we probably should have changed when we change from shell to may because I think that really did the originating agency really isn't the soul records custodian if, if the division decides to go ahead and be the one that turns it over so that language I think is going to have to be adjusted on page 19 on page four lines 19 and 20 I don't know if it goes far enough for your concern, Felicia, but at least that clears clears up that they really are not the soul records custodian. Once the data is turned over to the division. Do you see what I mean, Eric on that. Yeah, definitely. Yep. I think that's probably it would be a good idea to run this conversation by Tucker. I certainly not an area that I would just want to be changing language on the fly because I'm sure I would mess something up. I don't know if there's a way that it's really an intermediary level. It's like, if I want the actual record. It was sent individually or as it's own data set. Yes, there's going to be a cost that I want to make it as, at least cross prohibitive as possible, as we can statute without kind of exempting this from. I'm not going to be saying that I statute on public records. But if I'm looking for, well, hey, did you create a data set out of these records that were sent to you can I please have that data set. Who owns the data set if it's not included with the report. But going to be the division, and does the division send me out to get the records to make my own data set or do I have access to that data set is the database, its own public record. How are we donating that like it is that there's a lot of tacky tacky questions and I'm not trying to be problematic. No, no, we should figure that we have to take a result. I want to take the time to do this right. And I want to hammer it. I want to make sure that it's infallible when it goes. I appreciate this work. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Barbara. I may not be so relevant anymore, but back to the discussion about the staffing. I don't remember anybody talking about crime research groups feedback to Karen saying that often we don't fund things adequately and it. It's nobody is first of all, if we can't get people higher they'll be vacancy savings. And I trust the people who are doing the work to tell us what they need. And the appropriations committee to review that. And so I hope we don't end up making assumptions that it doesn't feel like is our place to make and mean we all want to make sure we're spending money carefully. I don't want to get this right like I don't want to pass. But it's true, we will have a hard time getting data making sure it's all in but that's a reason to make sure we have the staff that we need to do it properly. And so I just want to not be penny foolish. Thank you for that. Thank you. I've been struggling with with this whole division slash bureau and whatever. And there's many reasons for this I realize that this is very valuable and very important statistics or data that we should be gathering. And looking at it and we're into the weeds on this I realize that, but I just don't want to be the committee member that says yes or no without some type of explanation. And looking at this division, when I first think about division of statistics and data gathering or whatever else. I don't feel that the way that it's set up now it's equitable, or it's inclusionary as far as everything that we're looking to find and we've passed a lot of bills here in committee whatever time that we do, we talk about the importance of gathering the data reporting back to both the House and Senate judiciary a certain point in times whatever else. So, when I think of the division of statistics and data gathering that's just what I think of and all we seem to be focused on one specific group of individuals that we're going to be gathering is that on. And I think that whether we're looking at, you know, the LGBT community which we talked about in the bill that we passed, as far as reporting back we've talked about even the adoption proceeding and so forth. So, and then we talk about, well, we may have five people but a year and a half that or maybe down to two or three people that's not going to happen. So, what I'd like to see us do is build on this, and if we call it a division of statistics and data or whatever else and we start with one particular group of individuals to gather that I don't have a problem with that because all the data statistics I think are very important information that Vermonters need to have. So I don't want to start a whole division, because and I'll tell you quite honestly what brought me to this was one. Representative Christie to send, because I was very confused with all the different groups that we had after gathering this information that we already have access to. One thing I noticed is right below the division, there was a secondary division that's going to be started up going, that's not the direction I want to go with, I want to go with one division. And that division is responsible for gathering all of the information that we're going to need is wrong and I've heard, well we're going to start someplace and I agree with that we do. But we need division is in its entirety to be equitable and inclusive of all that data statistics that we're looking for. And I don't believe that in this particular case, do the fact that can we say and we'll get a lot of this information come in presently and we do and I think most members on this board will say that we do. So I'm not sure just, we can continue to support this division continually down the road unless we start bringing all those other entities for the data from these groups that we're looking for into the phone service. So, I had to kind of get out there as to. We need this. It's important. And if we're going to start with a particular group. That's that's fine. But it's a division of statistics and data gathering and we get it from all important entities after that we need to gather that information so we make it a better Vermont. Welcome for this this seems to be kind of singular in my mind here. This is how I look at it and I want to support this. I think we're going to look outside the box a little bit here and I don't mean to start stirring it all up starting ground zero it's not what I'm saying. I think we can get down just not sure how to do it in the direction that we're going present. So I just I just had to get that off my chest books. Thank you. So, I mean I guess I just it's a question for for Ken as much as anything for going back and I know kind of you said that they're already doing this and then I want to understand precisely what you mean by the this that that is already being done, because maybe it's a higher level thing I really I'm just I'm trying to understand that. The office. The office has already been created three or four years ago. With the hiring of, of Susana, right. Yeah, yeah, since then it is grown to where we're the governor. It's expanded that to three positions. Right. Correct. We have, we have filled two of the three, we're having a hard time filling the third one. Correct. I think that's my understanding. Okay. We have a huge problem huge. If you go back with the outdated computer systems we have the lack of the lack of workforce we have I mean the computer systems are what outdated 3040 years to go and load up more even though you're going to be out source this up which makes it even more expensive is is the information is going to be collected somewhere more agency of digital services. They're still going to collect it on the servers on whatever you call the computers, and they're going to be outsourced to this other private entity. We're still going to be loaded up. We're going to have need resources that we don't have to do this. And I, again, I can't say it enough. I want to see this be successful, but going about it this way when we already have when the administration already has something that is is pretty well set up from point A to point B to where we can focus on even more things to include moving forward. I just, I can't agree to this. The two positions that were I don't know if the governor hired him or not that worked for Susanne. What other dude, anybody know what their duties are that they would be, or any other duties along these lines as far as collecting information. I know that they're not quite an information one I believe is really focusing on education issues. And I don't recall what the second maybe coach knows. The two positions basically the way that they're designed is the person that's on staff now is the outreach and education person. The next person that comes on board, we're hoping is going to be a policy analyst level individual. So that still puts us in a position when we look at the office and the reason that those two boxes when when I shared that first map were in green was because it's work. It's not about creating, you know, like new entities. The big box that we're working on right now is the division of racial justice statistics. Nobody is collecting that specific data in one place. Historically, if you look at the statute that enabled the position of the office of racial equity, it said specifically that that office will do additional data collection across all departments of state government. That was the enabling statute. We never got there. And we're not there yet. The goal would be that some of that work will be able to be done through this entity as well as the specific data that's going to be collected while doing the other work. And so so that gets back to what Bob was talking about. Having it housed, you know, now if and I'll give you the specific example, if if this division was housed anywhere other than the office that deals with racial equity, you could see where there'd be even more question of how do we get very specific data to that, you know, that office, you know. So so in essence, it was it was very fortuitous in our DAP in its recommendation to lean towards going to the office of racial equity to house the division because that's a it's a more reasonable expectation that that office would have a broad enough scope to understand it because that's the way it was designed in statute, and we didn't even fund that to start right. You know we asked one person to do all of that work, knowing full well that it was going to take, you know, a full office to do that work. So the information we're going to collect. Say, you know, if this bill goes through is the information we're going to use to determine policy. Eventually, you know, all all data should give us that information, we would hold. That was half a question half a statement kind of. Anyway, we have a position that's not filled. Which is going to be a policy expert. So if we put a policy expert into place before we have all this information. They are going to have the information they need to forward correct policy. Well remember remember Tom you know it's a. We're talking about it like a parallel universe here. The policy work that a policy person would be doing is a lot of what director Davis is doing now, and it would be shared. I can give you an example, when the Human Rights Commission went from one executive director to a policy education and research person, it then enabled that agency to be in more places than one at the same time. And because they're directing that same level of work. And that's what that office has needed. Is that level of support to the legislature. Just on the wall, I don't see a lot of policy directed at the, you know, the issues we're talking about not that they're not important issues. I was wondering if there's enough policy work to to sustain two people right now. I believe after we gather all this information there's going to be but I question whether there's a there's enough work there now they could certainly split the policy work. Well, well let's let's let's put it, let's do all do respect, you know, Tom. Think about, that's just our committee wall. Remember to disaggregate all of the bills that have equity and inclusion related to them that director Davis has gone to across all 13 committees, you know, of the house alone. Forget about the Senate, you know, even you know I can't say forget about that they are our sister body but anyways, think about how many times, you know they're called upon in the total number of bills that address equity and inclusion. And that is where the some game comes up. I'll go ahead. My folks that justice read investment to certainly data collection. The equity is our justice system. Very much a concern of the council state governments, and is guiding is guiding you know some of our work in this committee as well as other committees. Okay, we are overdue for our break, we have testimony, it does sound like we need to do very least a little bit more work with Tucker, right. Yeah, and yeah, and then we're waiting for the new fiscal fiscal note. So, that's the time to keep thinking and talking about. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you everybody let's let's take about 10 minute break, and we're going to move on to the adoption. Oh Eric, I'm sorry. I was just gonna say I sent Tucker an email as well and tried to summarize some of the discussion and I'm not sure if he's available right now but I reached out to him. Great. Okay, I appreciate that. Yep.