 Well, I guess we should just get going. Quick round of introductions. Right, that's on me, and I have to press the right button. No, that's the wrong button. Nope, right button. Okay, Monica. Okay, hello everyone. I'm Monica Wieber, Administrative Services Director, and I'm with the Department of Corrections. Great, Rebecca? Hi everyone, Rebecca Turner, Defender General's Office. Tyler. Good evening, everyone. Tyler Allen, I'm the Adolescent Services Director. I'm the Commissioner appointed designee for Family Services Division DCF. Great, Karen. Karen Gannat, Crime Research Group. Susanna. Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Director for the FACES. Great, Ian? Ian Loris, Etan's note taker. Just take a minute. More than that, but yes. And Julio, please. Hi, good evening. Julio Thompson, Civil Rights Unit, Attorney General's Office. Great, thank you. And that's everyone. That's everyone I have on the list, so. All right, here we go. Did Witchie get to go? Oh, I didn't get to go. I am so sorry. How do you and everything? Oh, I ignored. You all are so kind and so nice, and I just diss you. I'm so sorry. You can like, smash or something. Go ahead, Witchie. No, you're okay. Wicheltu pronounced he-him-him's data engineer pointed by Susanna. Thank you. And I'm glad you interrupted Witchie because I would have just gone on. Yeah. I'm horrible that way. Anyway, are we all here? Did I forget anyone? No, okay. Two things that I guess are, well, one thing's not happening. One was that Representative Lalonde was going to, I thought, join us this evening with an eye to thinking about Ledge Council and their upcoming participation. He asked me in a phone call whether I thought tonight would be a good night for it. I said, no, give us one more week. And then come the following week. I mean, Ledge Council. So I think it will be Eric Fitzpatrick and that will be next week. But Representative Lalonde is not here so I cannot confirm this. He wrote me earlier about a link because he was having trouble with the link because God forbid it should be a meeting where everyone gets the link. And I sent it to him but that doesn't seem to have resulted in his joining us. So anyway, maybe he will show up. That's that important news. The other is with the help of Anne Walker who works in the Attorney General's office and is in my estimation, a rare goddess because she makes all problems just stop being problems. I don't know how someone does that. She managed to get us for our meat space meetings which are hybrid of course, but they have to happen somewhat in meat space. We're gonna keep using the Hartford Town Hall in White River. Again, there is a hybrid choice. Hold on, people are texting me like madly and I wish they, it's my mother, nevermind. So they have such a great data setup. There's that massive monitor in there and it's ready to go. So all somebody has to do is plug the computer, their computer into the monitor and life is good. So I'm just saying, I think you should do that. Whichever way you wanna join, join. I just got a great message in the chat. Oh God. Anyway, continuing along here. Right, so we have the meeting down tonight. What I'd like to do tonight, thank you all for getting this now that it's on SharePoint. Thank you all for the comments. What I was really hoping to do and it's going to be a bit tricky but we'll still be able to handle it is to go through the comments that people added and in fact add them to the document as it exists. I would also like at a certain moment to look at everything and go, what is missing? We're at that moment in time, what is missing? And then all the way through the meeting and this is of course very important is we need to make notes for ourselves and Ian do listen to this about what we need is, what are questions? Big questions about this report that need to go to the full panel next week at the full meeting and that's all of us. I want all of us to do that. Please don't just put that on me, I'll forget. You know that. You already know I'll forget something. So like names or you know, anyway. Just I'd like everyone's help on that. So I was hoping to start, just start in with if you've got SharePoint, I have it open. So I was hoping to start with the draft that looks suspiciously like a report that we submitted a year ago and go through the comments that mostly Evan made on this and makes some decisions. Rebecca, you're frowning a little, should I be concerned? I'm not gonna admit to anything, but I am on SharePoint now. Oh, okay. So that's what I would like to do tonight. I want just real basic, go through it. What's in, what's not in? In other words, what are we going in the end give to the entire panel to look at and to comment upon that we'll then take back, revise one last time and eventually vote on. And please bear in mind this is coming up. So the first comment I see is from Evan in section three, the mission of the office of social justice statistics, everyone there. It's in green. Yeah. Okay. Want me to read it out loud or his comment or do you all wanna do that on your own? Well, there are people here who aren't connected. So let me actually read it out. I've highlighted in green three places where this or similar language appears. To avoid repetition, it might be beneficial to include it in only one place. The best place may be the end of this paragraph. The end of this paragraph states what our DAP would like to see done with the data as opposed to what the other places which purport to state what the office would like to see done with the data. It might be better to avoid any language that individuals could construe as setting an agenda or policy position of the office before the office even exists and has the ability to create data even if that construction is around us. If the suggestion is adopted then the first sentence of this paragraph could end after disparities. I will say I did find that there was some duplication of language and I thought that was just maybe like a copy and paste kind of issue that we really would wanna go through and clean up. And so maybe that's what he's highlighting here. That's what I was thinking too. That's why I wrote my little letter was, don't get caught up in the words so much. Yes. That's what I was thinking, yeah. Yeah, okay. But I will say the second substantive part of his comment has to do with are we projecting an agenda ahead of the fact? And I know we've gone back and forth a little bit. I'm guessing that has to do with the section in red that follows. I am assuming the same as two. This section in red came about because of a very specific conversation that wanted the section in red. I recall that conversation. I think that was one of the meetings I was here at. Yeah, I mean, and I do too is that we wanted to make sure that, yes, I remember that conversation as well. I do too. Yeah. So can I make a pitch on, I'd like to hear others' reactions to Evan's point on the green before we move to red because I actually think they're two different things. One is more specific. One is much more of a broadly stated centering or anchoring principle or starting place. And I'd like to hear if others feel the same way as Evan's concerned that essentially what I hear Evan to say in that comment is that it's an overstep by our DAP and that we should defer to perhaps the future governing board to make that decision. And I think, well, I'm happy to share what I think which is very different from what Evan's concern is, but I think it is the critical point that our DAP can stand to contribute to the legislature to ensure that this data entity isn't just a generic data entity form, but stays true to its central purpose, which is to address racial inequities, right? And otherwise, I think that this can easily turn into a different animal altogether and something that was not contemplated certainly does not get to what we're trying to deal with here which is to make sure we're not inheriting racial structures in data collection, aggregation, analysis, reporting. And that is this driving central underlying principle which is that we're not here to try to promote public safety. We're not here to try to promote a certain party. We're here to address and correct, right? Not just to understand, but to correct, right? Because we don't want to further, we don't want to perpetuate racial inequities, right? I think that's not apologetic and I think absolutely is critical. I agree and I'm wondering if the issue is that we envision potentially that this office could go beyond and we had that conversation and maybe that's where Evan's coming from, but I agree that we want to make sure that the starting place is exactly where our depth is coming from. So my only thought about the green part was that it's in a couple of places in the document and so that first part about having it being in one spot but I don't think it should be changed in terms of saying what the purpose of the office should be. Yeah, the repetition doesn't bother me. There are two things about the repetition. One, I've had representatives say to me, we like it actually. Okay. I've heard that which is partly why when I wrote to everybody as we're not writing or remember to things past because the repetition serves a structural role. It makes, it's like, oh, I don't know. German, Leitmotif. It's a recurring idea that comes up over and over again and that that actually is helpful in such a document. I have been told. I've been told not, but I'm just putting that out there. Nevertheless, whatever we do with it, this isn't the moment to worry about it. I think that that's later. Worry about that later. I'm more focused on what Tyler and Rebecca are bringing up. I like it, I don't know what else to say. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it too. I'm fine. Yeah, I, Leo, you've got your hand up too. Yeah, I understand. I think I'm approaching a little bit of a repetition of what Monica said, but I think the concern is not to, in the language limit, the scope. I mean, to me, instead of saying it's centering racial equity, I mean, organizations and entities sometimes have multiple missions and complementary missions. And for me, when I looked at this, I thought why wouldn't you just say a central, not the mission? That makes it sound like there's one and only one mission. Just say a central mission is this. Whatever else the bureau does, they're still gonna do this and it's gonna be central to what they do, but I think it's fair to say we don't wanna close the door, especially in prior discussions, people have talked about the intersectionality issue where you have different populations that may have heightened disparities that may be more attributable to those other features of who they are as opposed to their race. The race may be a factor, but it may not be the biggest factor. So I think just something simple is saying like a central or a key mission. Cause it's never, that's never gonna be dislodged, but there's probably more room at the top. It would be easy to go from V to A. Witchy? Yeah, I agree with Holi as to like being careful of how we lament the scope to not close doors that we wanna make sure are open in the future. I do think it might be worth considering what doors we do wanna shut. Considering a lot of the toolkit talked about using data in a way that's ethical and I know Robin wrote some on ethical guidelines, but it might be helpful to be like, this data is not to be used for the following things. And I understand that probably doesn't belong on the mission. Maybe belongs more of the governance structure, but given that we've talked so much about it, it might be worth including some of that here. Do you really think we can? That seems like an endless list. I don't know, maybe there are some generalizations we can make about what not to do. I feel like we could reference the toolkit for that. I'll dig in through the toolkit and see what I can find. Okay, okay, Rebecca? Perhaps what Julio and Monica, what you guys are talking about in terms of embracing or acknowledging the intersectionality piece could be done and we haven't built it yet. Do you see above Roman numeral two? And it explains why we named the entity the way we've named it and not adopted what the legislature named it and act 65. And so that could be an opportunity to explain and clarify, I mean, beyond the A or omitting, limiting words to explain what we mean that we have to have the intersectionality of other aspects to it and building up. The point which you that you're making, I think is absolutely critical. I think there is a way to do it broadly speaking to make sure that what this should not do, cannot do, right? That we've identified as red flag areas. Maybe it belongs in the best practices section. Let me just look here. There's number five of act 65 that suggests the best methods for. Maybe that's where it goes, but I'm also open. But I think that is a critical piece. And maybe if others aren't sure or for an agreement, something to bring forward to the panel to confirm that that's something we want to include her. I'm gonna argue for it going in best practices myself. But, okay, moving along. Evan's next comment, if you're following. Rebecca, do you still have your hand up or did you have? I did not know. Okay. He writes, good God, could they make this smaller? The reference to a quote provides access to data, unquote is fairly broad and couldn't create an expectation on behalf of the public and some entities that all of the data collected by the office will be available for public inspection. Some of the data the office collects may be sensitive in nature. At a minimum, we may want to look at three VSA 5,004 for some confidentiality provisions. That seems easily enough included to me. Is Karen, which I sort of turned to you guys is understanding you guys are building the nuts and bolts section and again, best practices, privacy, confidentiality aspects and I appreciate what Evan's saying. Another level, I don't know how much we want to caveat the language, but I do think public access and transparency is key. One of our key principles in terms of making sure it's independent and accountable. How we want to say it. Yeah. I agree and Robin and I have talked about that a little bit and talked about de-identifying data and making that data accessible publicly. And I think the part about maintaining privacy and confidentiality also belongs in the best practice section, but I think it needs to be stated. And maybe I'll add more. Go ahead. Relative to this conversation, I'm wondering if the word provides access is appropriate because it's a little more than just providing the access to the data. It is making decisions around what access is granted to what level, to what data elements. And so there is in my mind something like, I don't want to say that this body is curating the data or so to speak, but providing access is a broad term that is not entirely descriptive of what we're saying. And curating is the one that comes into my mind, but it's not right either. And the office is supposed to create a more transparency within the data, right? I mean, that's one of the goals and transparency could include people having access to de-identified data or some other kinds of ability to view data, interact with data. That's the way I'm thinking about it. I don't know if we want to use any of those kinds of words. Why not also provides appropriate access to data? How about we take notes and not in a try to wordsmith in this two hours, but take notes of what, because I agree with what people are saying here. I'm sort of rethinking that phrase, making sure we don't lose the concepts. Okay. Let's move on then. And I'm trying to, oh, Evan has, well, he's talked about the red, but we don't need to go over that again. The next comment has to do with the list from one to six. There's significant overlap between this numbered list and the next numbered list. Perhaps the next list should be merged into this list and then the next list should be replaced by a statement that says to further this mission, the office shall develop a strategic plan which addresses the items numbered above. Sounds good to me. Yes, I do think that would make sense. Yeah. Yeah. I'm putting in the reply, cool. That's false at all. And I'll take a look at it. Okay, next. Having to do with, I believe the green again. Yes, the green. The mission of the office, blah, blah, blah, is to collect and analyze data relating to racial disparities with the intent to create, promote, advance a system and structure that provides access to data and information concerning racial disparities. Evan says, would the word inform be better than govern? Did we say govern? Did I say dummy? It's not in the section that's green, it's actually in number one, the first point of the mission. These relationships should govern the office's activities. So just take it up there. Would the word inform be better than govern? Although the office's relationships will certainly inform its work, technically the office's enabling legislation will ultimately govern what the office is and is not allowed to do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Evan's trying to do here, but govern or advise, govern and update, direct or update. I mean, it goes to the heart of the relationship between the governing board and the executive director. I agree. We need to bring that, I think, that issue to the panel. And Susanna brings up guide, but yeah. Bring that issue up to the panel, I think is a good idea. Ian, if you'd note that, that would be great. Thank you. Can I just add, I do think that Evan has a point though that oftentimes it's gonna depend on what this statute says. So obviously we're going to make a recommendation about what we think it should say and I like guide. I like govern. I like just putting it out there and I don't know shooting for the moon, maybe I'll get a satellite. I mean, we are describing it as a governing body, right? Right, it's called the governing body. I thought this was relationships with the communities. It says that those communities are represented in the governing body of the office. Oh, but then the relationships should govern that. Maybe we need to break out these concepts, right? And talk about the fact that the office needs to have relationships with communities represented in data. That's one concept. Then the office also needs to have a governing body and that governing body has to also have that representation and that governing body governs if that's the word we're gonna keep using. But I think there might be two different concepts. I think you're right. Well, that is speaking to the communities that are populating the governing body. So the governing body is governing but the communities themselves are, and it could get you into a sticky place where you have a community that is demanding a specific type of representation, which is not aligned with the perspective of the governing body. And then you have a document that has governing attached to two separate perspectives. And the communities may not be on the line. Also bear in mind, this is not legislation. This is a report. It's true. But as I read it anytime, the statement is just inaccurate. The relationships with the communities shouldn't govern the office's activities. The board should govern the office's activities. The communities may not even be in alignment with what they think the appropriate direction is and it's the job of the governing body to make the decision. So I just, I've muted it. I thought in form so that you're staying connected to the community is fine, but I mean, technically it's not accurate that the communities relationships are governing the day to day. So I didn't think it was, it's not the biggest point but it's not a style issue either. I think it's, it might create official expectations about what the community's power is outside of the governing body. But then there's a, there's another comment. Okay. It is to reflect that human infrastructure that we're in. Whoever's got the stuff in the background, could you mute please? Thank you. What I'm hearing are two different concepts, right? Reach relations, a deliberate effort to reach out to communities to make sure there is understanding of what's going on and seeking input. And then there's the governing body makeup, right? Of community members. So, you know, it's a point we haven't really developed which is this separate effort that this entity should be obligated to make or do or engage in, right? Which is let's bring in the community members as much as possible. Certainly. And which, yeah, you'll, and Karen in terms of people who work data systems, right? The building the trust aspect, right? What, how is, what's the, that's the language I'm sort of reaching for that you guys maybe we separate it out into two points. This one not being the governing bodies relationship with community members on the body and, but. Oh, fine, informed. I mean, if you want. I think, I think something that Julio said is really sticking with me, which is what power does the community have? And I think if we're really trying to change this word to determine with the power of the community, and I think we're all in agreement that the community should be, the communities recommendations should be as important as we think they are, then I don't necessarily feel informed has that weight. I understand why govern is not the correct word. I did like Susana's guide, but I do think that we need to make sure that us in the drafting of reports in the drafting of the words that we provide as much power to the community as is, as we can feasibly do. Susana, oh, she had her hand. I just wanted to say that the, sorry, I'm distracted because now teams didn't update where now when you lower your hand, it's like hand lowered and it's very distracting. So yeah, she's very abrupt, but in any event, I'm thinking about all of these words and I like words like inform and guide and all of those, but one of the things that comes up a lot in this panel that I think is important is discretion and to whom are people who have discretion accountable. And so when we think about governs, which appears to give a clearer mandate or direction of authority versus words like inform, I mean, I can say I was informed by the input of whomever and I may not do anything that incorporates their thinking. So to the extent that we want to empower communities, it's important that we come to consensus about how much, in whose hands do we want to put discretion and where a decision maker and influencer or guide or whatever, when a person who has just influence versus someone who has decision-making authority disagrees, is there a mechanism to reconcile that? And if not, who's the arbiter? Okay, Julio. Yeah, I think it's a balance between, I mean, there's also language in this draft about the independence of the body and that means forming, making informed but independent judgments that hues to its mission. And so that's part of like what motivated my concern about governing, there may be community input where they, and I have had experience with this, I think multiple people on these calls have where community members ask the government to do something that the government can't do legally. And so part of the balance here, and this is what I think what Wichita was getting at as well is that you have to be community responsive but you can't be just carrying out what the community may say because they may not, they're not the specialists. With some areas, some communities might, hypothetically want some information not to be de-identified. And the board and the office might say, no, you know what, we understand where the community is coming from but we can't do that for these reasons. That would be an instance where the relationship with the community doesn't govern the activity of the office. It may be at forms or influence or like Susanna said, guides. I think that's what we're all getting to but there is that balance because independence means independence in 360 degrees to be able to disagree in a principled and informed way from what there may be competing stakeholders that are asking different things of the office in terms of direction it wants to go or data it wants to disclose or even collect. In the chat, I put a link to an act which actually fortuitously and coincidentally was I think the occasion for me getting to know Rebecca which was the anti-registry law that the legislature passed in 2017 where there were concerns about creating a Muslim registry as one political candidate in 2016 said he was going to do. And so there was a law that was enacted. It was the first one signed by Governor Scott as governor that placed limits on what sort of data can be collected and for what purposes. And there could be members of the community that say, yeah, we would like a list of these people for whatever reason and they may be really good reasons but there are limitations as what you was getting to a few minutes earlier about prohibited uses that as part of the board and the office's independence they would want to be able to say, we hear you but that's where I was going with that. Can we mark that? Because I think Rebecca's right that that's just one of the big things that is sort of central to this entire project. And I'd like to hear the whole panel on it. Which I'm sorry, and this is Rebecca. I tried, Julio, thanks for putting that back in the link. And I also put in the chat, this PDF but which he pointed out it's not, can't find it from my link. But it's a guide that I'm getting from racialequityalliance.org and it's titled advancing racial equity and transforming government, a resource guide of what ideas and action in there as I put in the chat as it's relevant to what we're talking about, which is this idea of engaging the community. And Julio, I hear what you're saying in terms of how that can, the language used and then making clear what the relationship is, what expectations are set. I included too much in the chat, it went too far. It really just starts with one, two, three bullets, those first three bullets in the chat. And that's the language. This is a separate concept from the rules of specific community members in the governing body. I'm just making that commitment that it's reaching out. We're gonna reach out. We're not gonna wait for people to just send us comments. We're not gonna just rely on the people who are in the body themselves represented, but there has to be a separate thing. And again, more than just those three bullets because really what it doesn't address is why do we need, why is that needed? Recognizing that historical distrust, present day distrust. Witchie, and then Monica. I just wanna propose alternative language that maybe can help or it might just blow everything up. So I was thinking these offices, activity should prioritize these relationships or the office's activity should prioritize these relationships. Lovely, lovely. That's an option. That's a very nice one. I'm giving Ian a moment to write it down. That's what I'm doing. Monica, go ahead, you're next. And then Tyler. Thanks. I think that I'm still struggling with the two concepts that are in the number one. And I'll just come back to my original thought about, I'd like to see them broken out because the first concept to me is about how the office builds relationships with people in the communities, tries to create an open space where there's dialogue. The second concept is really about the board and how the board governs the office. And I feel like those are blended together. And maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I think to me that's why it's hard to come to an agreement on what this should say, because we're missing two concepts. So we'll make these relationships a separate point. I think the communities, having relationship with the communities, one point, communities being represented on the governing body and what the governing body's role is. Point two. Okay. That's, but I might not be thinking about it the way you're all thinking about it. That's okay. Thank you, Wichita. Karen, Karen, you're muted. You're still muted. Now, I see your lips moving though. Can you hear me now? Yeah, I'm out of here. I agree with Monica that they're two separate things and maybe somewhere in the document around that relationship piece. And I actually, Rebecca, I like what you put in the chat around build, even though there was a lot of points in there, that was really good information. Maybe we should put something in there that the governing body should find a way, rather than being prescriptive. We talked about last time the idea of maybe having some kind of task force that was a networking and input opportunity for a broader group of people because there's so many people that are interested in this is giving the charge to the governing body to find a way to engage as many people as they can in the process of informing themselves about the things that are important in the communities. Okay. That was way too many words, but you get the idea. Silo. I really appreciate the point Karen just made and what Monica said before that. I think my point is really aligned with what Monica was saying. And I really love what Rebecca said out loud when she was describing the value of engaging community feedback. I mean, the responsibility of this agency is to be representing the voice of communities. And so there's a value attached to that. And that concept for me almost reads a little differently than the other things on this bullet list. It's, you know, this is our mission and there is a value that involves community engagement. And I think Karen's solution that she just described is really elegant. And I guess I also want not to belabor the point but the other thing I was struggling with on Monica's point about those two items being merged into one is that it was tricking my mind into thinking that the governing body is the sole representation of the communities. And that's not what we're trying to say. So I think we actually go against our way when we have that. So that's all I wanted to add. Okay. His next point is simply about repetition. So let's leave that. Um, Elizabeth Morris is next, makes an excellent point. I don't know why I did that. I really, I wrote that. I don't know why I wrote that. I have absolutely no idea. I'm so grateful that you did write that. Sorry, I'm just talking about the time, people. I don't know, you know, juveniles and representatives of the interests of juveniles there. Would that work? Something like that. There might be some value to lived experience. That language really, think about juveniles who have been involved with the judicial system. Right. Yeah, lived experience might be a good term. Okay, I'll, or if Monica, Monica, you're there. Do you wanna do that? I just saw you there. I'm happy to do that. Go for it. So not just representatives, we're just talking about those juveniles with a lived experience. Yeah. Oh, and yes, what? I think I heard somebody say I think, or I'm hallucinating. Right. And then his next point, what about the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs? EG was supposed to sort of give the idea. It, I won't, I won't go into the Latin. It means basically, for example, it was not supposed to be in a totally inclusive list. It was just, but we certainly can put that in. He says, why is the law enforcement presence limited to data governance officials as opposed to law enforcement in general when none of the other entities' presences is limited to data governance officials? I don't know. What about a victim's advocate? Didn't we do that? I guess not. Okay. I thought we did. No, I thought we did too. Hey, Tom, I see it in this other stakeholders to be included, should be. Yes, they should be there. I didn't, I thought, for some reason I thought it was here. It's not. Would it make sense to just have one list, though, and just say here are people who should be represented on the governing body? Because it seems like it's two different lists now that I'm in that. Well, we may, I don't know. That's a good question. I guess my point would be, we made a big point at the beginning about community and talking about communities. So breaking that out seems completely appropriate to me to say we are talking about very specific communities which are the focus of the entire office anyway. Yeah, I like that. You know, it's not the data experts while central are not the focus of the data. Well, the way I read this, though, is that we have the list one through seven and they seem to be indicated maybe. It could be construed there, more important. And these people who have one and two other stakeholders are sort of afterthoughts. And that perhaps if we took those people and put them at the top of the list. But that could be, again, just from a reader's perspective but I didn't certainly get what you just said by reading it. I didn't get that intent from the way it's structured right now. Oh, okay. So you wanna, what, should we shift one and two in the other stakeholders just as six and seven under the first? I would put them on the top of the list. Right, because I think, well, I think I just heard you say really the reason you broke them out was to indicate their importance. Sure. You know, the other reason to break it out to Monica, I think Aetan, we were building this, we're looking at the AISP toolkit and it was a section on who should be at the table and how they thought of the people who should be at the table and thinking of it as sort of different groups. And before we just turn into one long group list, which I do think waters down the other point to it, right? The main point, which is thinking about who should be at, in this body, people who have the data that we're gonna be, right, agencies that will be providing the data, people, communities directly impacted by this, you know, the racial inequities in the system. I mean, in a way, I don't know, if we wanna do one long list, I still like the idea of subheadings, to sort of break out. And I'm just trying to find that page in AISP toolkit, but... And maybe it's just a matter of how it's formatted and making it clear, because I get that point too. But definitely, I think victim advocate needs to be here. Um, I have a question. Yes, Wichee, I'm sorry, I'm reading. Okay. They're misinterpreting and I'm not seeing it, and maybe it needs to be more explicit, but I don't see on here as a stakeholder, folks who with lived experience inside the criminal justice system. It's not there. Okay. It shouldn't be there. It's not my document, dude, put it in. Since you're there, can you put in a victim's advocate? Sure. And the other stakeholders or the ones that are prioritized at the top here? What do we think, gang? I'm flipping between like 50 documents. I'm getting there. Who is it we're considering on which list? A victim advocate. Oh, Tyler. Well, I don't think it depends. Where you put them depends on, are you calling like on a victim's advocate who works out at this state's attorney's and sheriff's office? Or is it a victim's advocate who works in a community justice or, you know, nonprofit organization? I know it gets confusing, but I think... I mean, we're not gonna be able to get absolutely. I know, I agree. So I would say put it in this second list here under four and have maybe a community victim's advocate represented. And I apologize to everyone. I'm gonna have to step away for a seven o'clock. You have your last? My last one, though. So this will be the last time I have to leave early. So I'm sorry about that. Julio put a note in. All right, I gotta find how to read it. Yeah, that's a good, that's a really great point, Julio. Do you guys see that? I'm trying. Okay, he says, I think that without going to a detailed list, we could include persons affected by racial disparities in the educational system, a big area for data analysis. That would be great. Can I ask more on that? Sure. Yeah, so just about thinking about like several, lots of thoughts in my head. One noting that we're, I think we're supposed to be building in some type of like refresher, right? Like where we're like reviewing who's on this governing body and making sure that that gets renewed. And at the same time holding the thought that we wanna make sure that this governing body is focused on the scope at hand and I want to understand how a person's affected by racial disparities in educational system while I agree is a big area for data analysis, how it could help inform the governance for data analytics in terms of criminal justice and juvenile criminal justice. Sure, I mean, one area that it might inform would be where there's a quasi criminal justice approach to student discipline and classroom governance. I think we've seen some reporting that's been done in the state of Vermont on that. And I think that's probably only been the tip of the iceberg. So, granite education is a big system, but in terms of how marginalized Vermonters are treated in the schools versus the great majority of non-marginalized peers, I think has, you know, and it is, I think if this bureau gets off the ground running, it's gonna greatly inform the ongoing discussions that have been going on for at least eight, for two sessions now about so-called resource officers in schools and the like. I just think that a lot of the other names on the list are all very, very focused on kind of the center of the bull's eye, which is a criminal justice system, which is true, but this is another, you know, potential treasure trove of data that really is gonna inform that discussion, the idea being you wanna completely disassociate does it inequalities from any impact on a criminal justice system? That's all. And Julio, what you're getting at too is sort of the specific differences if we are thinking of these governing board bodies as two separate ones, one dedicated to juvenile justice and one dedicated to the criminal justice, which is certainly what I was proposing and suggesting so that the juvenile justice side doesn't get too short shrift. And I know we're already facing huge numbers on each body, but I wonder if somehow we can, well, I don't know, maybe this list that we're building here is enough and not necessarily, and then we have the diagram in D, question is, is it useful to have a suggested makeup for each one or is it sort of self-evident? All right, hmm. Here's the follow-up question. This is to you, Tyler, and to Elizabeth too, and I'll take it back to Marshall and others here on this call. Who else besides the educational department of Ed's side or the educational side of the things should be included specific to the juvenile justice body, governing body? It's a good question, Rebecca. Elizabeth and I talked about this too. I mean, so we started talking about our contract for like balance and restorative justice as an approach, but those are contracted providers. So I would think DCF would represent the data that's coming through there rather than the agencies who are providing the services specifically. Maybe I'm not hearing your question quite right. Well, no, I think that's fair. Like you're thinking of it from a data owner perspective as to who should be on it, but our list is broader than that. It's organizations, perspectives that should be a part of who have some critical perspectives to share. Yeah, I mean, that could go a lot of where there's, so there's things like Vermont after school or something along those lines, if we're looking to go into that, because they're providing a lot of services for these young people outside of the school environment. So that might be an appropriate voice to bring into this conversation. They have interests around the state. Maybe I'm thinking about youth development program. Again, that's a contracted program. So all this goes kind of through DCF. I'm just trying to think about who the folks are that are working with youth. We have student or child drop-in centers, kind of a youth drop-in centers around that. Those might be voices we're looking to gather. I'll have to do some thinking about who might be appropriate for this, but I think I still have some fundamental questions about these two lists already. The big question that was occurring to me is that first one, why are those seven people or seven agencies, there's really more than seven because we're considering officials from various data sources and departments and so on and so forth. Why are we having an expectation that they're even on the governing body, let alone kind of the called out agencies highlighted? Like why are we starting with where are, where are we finding the communities that are most affected by this and building a governing body of those folks and not the professionals? And I'm sorry, if I'm getting us off track, I don't... No, Tyler, I take your, maybe not a rhetorical question, but as a reason why we wanna put that list, separate out the list and focus on that top end, right? Yep. Ms. Suzanna. Thank you. I'm struggling with the temptation to wanna add a lot of entities in response to Rebecca's question, because there's so much that occurs upstream that impacts young people in the juvenile justice system that doesn't appear to be directly aimed at or related to youth services, but absolutely has that impact and thinking of things like affordable, appropriate and housing, for example. I'm thinking about nutrition and other forms of health and health. I'm thinking about the fact that we've seen a 700% increase in diagnosis of autism in girl children over the last 11 years. And so what, how are we looking at the medical and psychological hygiene industry, I shouldn't say industry, the profession, in a way that reflects changing practices. And so a lot of it is upstream factors that don't appear to be directly related, but they really are. And I suppose we have to ask ourselves how many degrees of separation is appropriate. In other words, who has some level of impact here versus who should have a direct voice here? And that's not necessarily clear to me. I'm just here adding to the pile of questions with no answers, but I just wanted to say that because that's what's kind of eating at me right now. And I guess I would put in, I'm very torn. Drafting this wasn't fun, by the way. It actually kind of sucked. Mostly because of exactly what you, Susanna, were just getting at. I know that Rebecca and I both could think of about, oh, I don't know, 900 different groups that we could put in. But this is a report for the legislature, broad strokes, it's not supposed to be exhaustive. It's just not. And so it's a real conflict between, perhaps you come up with a sentence that says, I mean, there's one earlier I know that says, yeah, the governing body stakeholders should be drawn from the following list of historically stigmatized communities and stakeholders, but not be limited to this list. And that idea perhaps needs to be amplified all the way through that we need a sentence or something that captures what Rebecca and Julio and witchy and Tyler have all been getting at a very broad sentence that's, you know, and Susanna, that there are these other bodies that become apparent in the course of movement through the systems who should be included as well. And just leave it there or something. Again, it's all gonna get digested by the legislature. So don't spend, you don't wanna get too hooked on that. What if, you know, and I'm starting to think in terms of how this separation and degrees and how far afield and are grappling with intersectionality and the realities of who's in our system. And it's more than just victims and defendants and prosecutors and or complainants, right, and judges. It's also like you're saying, Susanna and others, right? The mental health issues and poverty and housing, rehabilitation, you know, alternative, you know, treatment programs, right? For all of these things. Where are they? They're stakeholders in this system. I wonder if keeping that third category where we have crime victims listed here, we should in broad brushstrokes, not necessarily naming the individual programs, but identify those as well. Because to not have them on the list and just have one sentence at the beginning doesn't capture the full picture or else we just take off like sort of end where the legal aid or AGO's office is and just have our broad sentence of others who should be interested. But I think it'd be useful for the legislature to see who we have identified as relevant. Go ahead and ask if you wanted to add. All right. And I'm just again capturing the mental health treatment programs. And again, we're smithing later. Okay. Great. I'm trying to envision this group of, I'm just trying to envision this group of people and how they are governing the work of these identified staff in the bureau. Like what the process, how they, I'm just trying to picture how these people are all working together, how they're in a room, what decisions they're making, how they're, how that happens and the list can go on and on. And I'm also doing this with consideration. If I'm looking for somebody with lived experience, I'm probably like this group looking for somebody who's working outside of their work schedule that maybe there's an attached stipend or something along those lines. But if they have the authority to govern the conduct of an agency, are these professionals, you know, how are they put together and how are they given the authority to govern this work? I'm getting more and more lost the more we talk about how that should look. Karen. Well, Karen, which you can you hold for one moment while I, Karen, you know Moe and Moe was very clear about this is driven by questions that come from communities. So I'm wondering whether you have some sense of what his answer might be. I realize that's hearsay, but we're not in the court. But obviously it does work on some level. Otherwise he wouldn't have spent as much time on that at that meeting as he did. So can you hear me now on this mic? Yeah. Oh, awesome. Okay, so I just looked up. I'm going to not quite answer your question directly, a ton. But so what I did was I was looking up the AISP toolkit and Ian pointed us to page 36, which says identify your stakeholders. And I actually between what Rebecca put in the chat and what this says. I think there's some really broad categories that we can pull from. So for example, in this document under identify your stakeholders, there's three bullets and then there's three or four bullets under those bullets. So it says core stakeholders whose engagement is central to data infrastructure. And under that is data owners and contributors, directly contributing or facilitating access, funding sources, government, private foundations or other, and public agency leadership and key elected officials. So that's the first group, which is core stakeholders. Other direct stakeholders whose engagement can help facilitate or impede data sharing success, but are not in the core group. And it talks about data users, researchers or advocacy groups, technical experts, legal data technology, security, research methods and fiscal members of communities marginalized by inequitable systems and advocates for vulnerable populations and communities. Those last two I really like a lot, members of communities marginalized by inequitable systems and advocates for vulnerable populations and communities. And then other stakeholders who can broaden interest of data sharing and deepen its constituencies, which are business groups, good government groups and other citizen and public interest groups. And I think those categories really capture everybody we're talking about. I think they could be in our document structured in a different way because I would put members of communities marginalized by inequitable systems and advocates for vulnerable populations and communities under core stakeholders and maybe the data nuts and bolts group would include the data users and the technical experts. But I think that captures with a really broad brush the groups we're talking about. Okay. Thank you. I'm not sure we've helped Tyler. I think which he had something. He does. I'm just waiting. I'm giving you a moment. That is helpful. That kind of organization that does make some sense. I'll just leave it at that. Okay. Which he I will just try to be brief because I don't want to because I think with Karen said I can Karen said a lot of the important stuff that I wanted to name. But I think what's important to understand is thought that there can be a role for like governance. It's not like one thing, right? Like there's different functions of governance. There's like how you conduct yourself as a body. And there's also like what is it that you're going to do? And why are you going to do it? Right? Like there's these different layers. And it's important that when we when we approach these kinds of layers that we approach it from different perspectives including the people that we're trying to solve the problems for. So I think that's sort of like how I think about how what kind of authority when we're talking about conducting and how this is all going to go together. My thinking is it's going to go together because everyone's going to bring in their own perspective on on what journey we're taking. Nice. All right. Forging ahead that was those are. Evans comments. And I haven't seen any by anyone further down. Um. There are the two. Sorry. Language diagrams. Um, which you've. Yes. Before we move off of the list, I just want to make sure people saw this comment in the chat. About. No, probably not because I'm looking for everybody's hand. Yeah. Yeah. And I had, I've just found the video buttons and I can see people again. Great. Thanks. I mean, it makes a critical point sort of unpackaging with living lived experience means we if we say it. Without saying what we mean by it. As if it's self evident, but. Susanna, I'll let you say, I'll let you share your points. I want to make sure we. Talked about it as a group. Thanks, Rebecca. sort of the main protected categories that we're thinking about, but that also is gonna mean age and having generational diversity on these various boards or stakeholder groups. It's my experience that young people are almost always excluded from policymaking or government adjacent work. And that senior people are often excluded in conversations that revolve heavily around technology. So if we could have more generational representation in the age cohorts, then I think it'll pay off in space. I'm just thinking about the Congressional hearing this week or last week. Oh God. And Finsta. Yeah. And the importance is having people who understand the subject matter if you're having decision-making authority or influence over things that are gonna affect a lot of people. Yeah. No, I appreciate that. As I've also been reading about how we're focused on aggregation. So we're doing something earlier today about disaggregation, the movement towards disaggregating race and ethnic data, specifically getting to the subgroups, right? I mean, we're not even capturing Asian-Americans, but by way of example, but then capturing specifically the subgroups within and to your point, Susanna, where the closer you look, right? So to actually capture the groups, you start to see significant differences in generational experiences. And, you know, you didn't necessarily talk about but the immigrant experience as well is a factor there with a generational perspective on the subgroups. You know, another Native American getting that to be, again, disaggregated to a smaller, smaller level. Maybe that's to the best methods, but lived experiences is good. It's another way of sort of trying to get away from these overly broad labels when we do it, certainly in Vermont, where we are just sort of black versus, what is it, Karen, our labels right now for, is it black and everyone else or how detailed in terms of subgroups do we get? Pretty broad. Yeah. I don't know if we wanna do it by a footnote or something to talk about lived experiences, but I certainly agree. I don't think we should presume that the legislature will know what we mean by way. No, no, don't presume. I'm certainly for putting some extra language in there somehow, some way. Okay. We've gone through a lot of this. There's one thing I wanna say. Everyone who had a great idea for an edit, I'd love to see it here in the next few days. Yeah? Wouldn't that be amazing? I mean, that would be just so damn cool. If in the next few days, all this conversation magically appeared on the document. I don't know what I do. I will try not to like, you know, faint, but it would be so cool. Let's do that. Let's do that so that when we give this to everybody, they're looking at it. They're looking at it, meaning it, where we are, where we are now in our entirety. Witching. I just wanna make sure I'm following proper protocols. So I was sort of editing as we go and included some notes, no worries. Is that fine? Okay. I'm noting that the title of the document has a specific date. And I remember you talking about needing versioning, but also that SharePoint already does versioning, but there's also like another document with the same name with a different date within that SharePoint. So I'm just trying to get all of my... This is the document. Worry about this document. This one. Okay. Yeah, don't worry about it. The other point that I'd like to bring up is now to go really back to the top. I would like, it's not the first page, which is just like the cover page for the report, but it's section 19 of Act 65. And under section 19, roughly in the, well, I don't know, the middle, last third of the page are the five points that the report shall address. What needs to happen? What needs to happen? What do we not have? I waited till now for a very specific reason. Well, I think we're, number one is missing. Yeah. Ian, please write these down. Number one is missing. And Etan, I just wanna say, I promise that I would write up the data integration plan piece and run it by Witchie and Julio. So I will take that on and get that done for next week. Okay. Can I ask you a little question about that, Karen? Sure. I'm just, I just wanna get clarity on like what documents am I looking at and what am I commenting on? I know that you and Robin created a proposal for the justice information sharing governance structure, but I don't know if that was specifically for this. Yes. Well, it was for this and it was for NCJRP. So I will, I saw your comments, I read them earlier this week. So I will talk with you about this. Great. And Alan, should I also be looking at that data part one document? Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Okay, I'll go ahead and do that. Thank you. And Robin, I'm just Robin, Karen. Sorry I missed last week and I hear, I understand you presented a little bit on this, this part of it. I did quickly skim the attachments pulled from that and what is that? I'm gonna get the acronyms wrong. NCJA. Sorry, National Criminal Justice Reform Project. Okay. But what I didn't, well, thinking about how we're centering racial equities and the voice and sensitivities through it, I didn't see the racial equities woven into it and I know because that was coming from a different perspective and project, much more broadly stated. So I'll be curious to see how you draft five working in the concepts of AISP to the extent. And again, just, I know that's so broad but that's just my interest without going more about it. No, thanks. Thanks for that reminder, Rebecca. I'll make sure that gets woven in and which he can help me. And number six, who is on number six on this report? Number six. Best methods for the office. Oh. Is that right? That's number six. Number five. Five. The best methods for enforcing data collection and analysis response. Oh, right. Yeah. It's number five. You're right. I was getting brightened. Yeah. I was looking at Roman numeral six of the report, the last page and it's because they don't track perfectly because we have the introduction as one. Right. Which then puts everything off. So Karen, were you saying you were talking about number five? Or number four. Okay, so number four. Who's going number five? Best methods. I thought that that was also me, Robin and Karen. Yes, let me, let's, we'll take a shot at both those. Number four and number five. Number five, Karen. I wrote some, a list of different risks that came from the package that I wanted to make sure that we address in the best methods. Great, thank you. So my sense, just looking at trying, I'm not doing much editing. I'm trying to keep the big picture here. I think that's my job. The big hole, it certainly seems like four and five right now, but that's on it, they're on it. One, we're still back to one being our big problem. I think the whole discussion we've had for the last hour and a half shows we don't have any problem talking about the mission. The scope of the mission we can like talk about, we can talk about granularity of all of this till the cows come home. And I'm not saying that ironically, it's really quite nice to be with a group of people who can sort of go, yes, but there's a generational aspect here. And if we're talking about intersectionality, let's really do it. I love that. However, there is this one thing and we're still stuck here with one. Now I'm not trying to call anyone out. I know that there were some of you who wanted to talk to different governmental actors now and get some further feedback from them. This would be the time because we're meeting the full body a week from tomorrow. And we can't leave this discussion for November because our last meeting of the full RDAAP is literally the day before this report is due. I'm going to be very busy doing very different things like copy editing and other really fun things. So I just want to point out, we really got to take on one now. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, no, no, it's fine. I just want to point out, Evan was really, really, he wrote a great bit of work arguing for the agency of an administration where the office of the executive director of racial equity is situated and we have played with it. We haven't really, no one's actually even made particularly strong statements except in fact for the executive director herself. And I don't know whether that's everyone being polite or whether we're still thinking it through or why and I'm not going to be able to call it. I just want to point out whatever it is, we got to get over it because we got to figure out where this is going. We still haven't done it. The one thing we have done and I want to say this positively is we have said it has to be in state government but I want to remind you, when this first came out, we were like, we were rent space down those street and put it in there and just get people in there to do whatever needs to be done. I mean, we were like totally behind that at one point. I thought that sounded like a great idea. I mean, I was like, why have governmental actors? They're useless. So just put them. So I thought that was great. We have now matured. Some of us have, that would be me. And we're kind of asking questions like, and when people want to take vacations, who signs off on it? When a computer is requisitioned, who does that? Who signs like the time sheet for the paycheck and stuff like that? And so we finally got to that, but we got to go further. And I don't know whether you want to start that conversation now. We have half an hour. What I was gonna say was that I admit that that's a loose end of mind that I can work on wrapping up on for next Monday to bring in. I'll work on section one. The other thing I was gonna just say was the thinking about how Evan presented it and the walkthrough in our comments, I was struck by sort of we did, it seemed like we were developing some consensus around certain points. You're highlighting the big unknown and certainly not any consensus, which was if it's within state government, presuming it's within the executive branch, is it a new entity? If not, which entity should it be? So that's the big question. And I'll see if I can run down a little bit more information from Secretary of State and Auditor's Office specifically for next week to see if that adds anything. But then there were some other points that Evan's use building off of that draft, that legislation that brought some interesting points to the forefront, which was, well, how do you sort of build in that concept of independence within the entity itself? Who appoints, who confirms, who removes, right? How much of dependence within back to the governing body versus the executive director. So it was the terms, things like that, that I thought perhaps, and I can try to pull some of those concepts generally speaking. Sure, I think that would be great. If I can get, maybe I can connect with Evan and anyone else here who's interested in before Monday to bring them in to the fold. Were we more, let me ask this, were we actually more, were we happier with the agency of administration than I know? Again, can you repeat the first half of your question? I'm sorry, Susanna, that was, you were kind of faint there. I asked, I said, did you repeat that? I just missed the first half of what you said. Sure, were we as a body happier with the agency of administration than I know? Because I didn't get the sense that we were, but I can be obviously very wrong. I've shared this position from the defender general's perspective before. Right. And that hasn't changed, which is concerned that it's not independent enough. Certainly if it's modeled under the current legislation creating that office, I don't think it protects it. So that hasn't changed. Okay, okay. Then I guess I'd like to go ahead, Karen. Can I ask a question? Rebecca, if the office of racial equity was moved somewhere else to say akin to the Human Rights Commission or the Center for Crime Victim Services, one of those quasi-governmental nonprofits, what would you think about that? Yeah, no, it's the Human Rights Commission was among the top suggestions recommended before. Otter's office, first date. So you're saying within, within? No, not within those, but as an entity similar to those. So it's its own entity, which also allows it to go after other funding. So it also allows it to apply for other federal grants, state grants, but still receive legislative funding. So I was just wondering what your thought was around moving the office of racial equity out of the agency of administration and making it its own entity. Yeah, no, there's that, that is not, that's an interesting possibility and one that I certainly, I would support in theory and concept, right? Not to dismiss it outright. The funding alternatives to state government is interesting in terms of data privacy protections. You, I'm not sure and others on this call might know better what vulnerabilities lie with putting a data entity outside of government, where the funding sources come from outside of government. And I know I'm talking to C.R.G. Which I, it's just- Right, that's what we do, that's what we do. Yeah, there's, I mean, it makes it a little more challenging to get data from the state, but it's not impossible. I think the authority is probably, the issue in number five, the authority is probably becomes more of a question in that scenario. But I just think it's an interesting thing because I do think, I liked Evan's description of the way the statutory authority, well, the statutory, the responsibilities given to the office of racial equity, I thought matched with what we were trying to do with the office of, I haven't gotten the new name right yet, but Office of Social Justice Statistics, thank you. I think it matches quite well with that and expanding that and giving it more resources, I think would be a great thing. So, rather than reinventing the wheel, how do we make the wheel work better? Is my thought about that. I missed the part which you thought was great language in the legislation that Evan- Well, it's actually in the legislation that built the Office of Racial Equity. That legislation actually, I think speaks very closely to what we're thinking the Office of Social Justice Statistics is going to do. They're so closely related. Yeah, I just don't have that handy. You're talking about the mission statement, so to speak. No, the legislation that created the Office of Racial Equity. No, I understand. Okay, okay. I just didn't know which part of that legislation you were referencing that was- The data collection, I don't have it in front of me, but there was a part that talked about data collection and data analysis of racial disparities. It just speaks so, there you go. Suzanna just put it in the- Thanks, Suzanna. So, just another thought, moving the Office out of the agency administration. And Karen, I just clicked on the link that Suzanna provided. Do you have that? If you just quickly tell me where you're at. Suzanna probably knows this like the back of her hand and could tell us. So there are a few places and I'm not sure which one you're talking about. There's one on page number five in about halfway down the page. Number two, that's just a general list of the duties which includes managing and overseeing the statewide collection of race-based data. And then a little bit further down in page five, section C, it says pursuant to section blah, blah. The director shall work collaboratively with state agencies and departments to gather relevant existing data and records and develop best practices. And then there is another place in there that talks about access to records. Is that what you were referencing, Karen? Actually what you just talked about was it's the data collection piece. And I think, do you have something in this legislation around analysis of the data? There's nothing explicit that I can remember that's in here about analysis. Okay, okay. Is there something explicit in Act 65 as to analysis? I don't think so. Is that right? Oh, God. I don't remember. Where is it? I don't know. Karen, I appreciate the link. I've made notes of those sections, Susanna. But it just made me realize talking about analysis in your ask, Karen, as to whether there is language in there as to analysis. I believe, let's go do that draft report of ours. I'm sorry? I'm just gonna find our draft report and looking at Act 65 expectations. Data collection and analysis responsibilities. It is built into five. Yeah. And four. Yep. As we sort of, again, when we read this as an edit, all of us for next week, to make sure we think about, or making sure we have the language and collect, analyze, aggregate is in there, disperse, access, like what verbs are we using? What do we wanna make sure we have? We'll just be conscious of what we're using and whether it captures everything. What we mean by analysis, I guess you guys are gonna be doing in four and five for next week. Yeah. I agree. Yeah, and I would say that just generally, when I talk about don't get lost in the one word, sure. But if the word is central to the idea of something, I mean, you guys are all really smart. Then don't listen to me. But I mean, if it's informed as opposed to guide as opposed to govern, I mean, obviously that's a major issue around of central function of this body. So I don't mean it. I mean, I wrote that because, look folks, this is the third one we've been through. I'm not my first time at the rodeo. I've been in meetings like this where we have argued about promos. So I didn't want that going on. But no, that kind of thing, please do that. Please do that and please do that for next Monday. Everybody, just get in here and get dirty. I mean, Tyler, you're always good at, I always think you must have been good at differential calculus, because you're good with systems that move and are constantly in motion. And that's one of them. So I always wonder whether you're good at differential calculus, nevermind. Anyway, you suck at it. Okay, nevermind. But you're good at systems that move. And so... I'm a social worker, eh, John? Yeah, I know that. My mother, too, she does things like that. But seriously, look at this and put that in there, that skill that you have for that. I have always admired. And I'd like to see what you do here with things. And everybody else has, I mean, which you don't even know where all of yours are yet. I mean, I'm still figuring it out. You're like, just do something. I, four and five will be fine. I think we're a lot closer than we think. I think we're a lot closer than we think. I'm actually feeling that we're in a position that even if there are a few things that aren't exactly answered, it's gonna be stuff that hasn't been made extremely clear to us in what they've asked and that they may come back to us as they have before and said, can you fill in a little more about blah, blah? But I really feel like we've got the broadest outline of this pretty much under control. And I think it's good that we have it at that point on the 4th of October, given that this is due in the middle of November. It gives enough time for us to get something done and then have the freak out moment. You know the freak out moment? All my students always have the freak out moment. They finish the 400 page dissertation and then they suddenly have an existential crisis. Oh my God, my field is bull. Why am I even doing this? And I don't even know why I wrote these 300 pages. I'm gonna cut them out. And then it's the advice. You have to sit there and go, no, it's okay. You're supposed to freak out now. That means you're thinking about it all well. I really wanna hope that we have that time built in that we can have a complete freak out. Maybe I'll have it. And just look and go, this is just a nightmare. And you all can pull me back from the edge. But I think it's important to have that moment because it really means you've thought it through. So I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm glad we're this far ahead because we're giving ourselves the luxury of that. And that can only make this a better document. So anything else or do we all know where we're gonna go for next Monday? I mean, go rhetorically, not like go, but. Yeah, I know, I'm good. I think you gave us our marching orders. Okay, all right, good. Please do the best you can to meet them. I understand we're all like, I get it, I get it. I really do. It's just, if we can do this major push here, we have a huge chunk of this sitting there. And as you all know, it's easier to work on something that exists that you don't like than coming up with something from nothing. So let's get something, all right? Julio, can you think of anything that is missing? No, nothing comes to mind right now. I'll let you know if something hits me later. Thank you. All right, then I guess we can all have an evening. Thank you so much. Thank you all so much. You keep adding things that I don't know. That's why I just like, I do sketching, right? It's like let everybody else think about the real details because I was like listening, oh, that's interesting. I didn't even think about that. I really didn't. So I'm very grateful you all are here and that we're a panel because if they had asked me to do this, it would be bad. So thank you and we'll see you all next week. Thanks a ton. Thank you very much. Have a good week everybody. Bye.