 Okay. Minutes from the September meeting. Corrections, errata, anything of that nature. Witchie? Just three things. The first one being in the attendance list, number one is just a blank. I don't know if that was intentional. Just naming that. Right. On the page number four, it says maybe talk about this next month after reviewing the 2019 report. Rebecca said that. I just needed to, I just, is that 2019 report on the SharePoint? It should be on the RDAAP page of the AGO's website. That's where it's lived for a long time now. Okay. All right. Thank you. And that was all my questions. Thanks. Okay. Grant, you have those? Yeah. Okay. Great. So is there a motion to do something? Can make a motion to accept the minutes with the amendments that Witchie offered. Great. Is there a second? Sheila. Okay. Great. All in favor. I. I. I. I. I. I. Got it. Thank you. All opposed. All abstentions. Minutes are approved with Witchie's amendments. Jen. Oh, you were just, okay. Never mind. Just noting that I'm standing aside because I had to play last month. Got it. Got it. Remember. Glad you're over the plague. Thank you. Um, that was me too and a ton because I was not at the last meeting. Got it. That's right. You weren't either. Thank you. So two abstentions. Still the note. It's carried. Wanted to begin with a discussion of the recently completed audit of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council and the Vermont Police Academy with reference as the agenda says to potential duties of the RDAP that may come out of this and there may also be none. That's why it's potential to that end. Um, I invited Heather Simons, who is the executive director of the council to come and speak with us about the audit. Perhaps give us a bit of history of how it came about. Um, reactions to it where directions that the council is now planning to go in given the results of the audit. And then we can talk a little bit perhaps about what we need to do if anything at this point in time. Heather, I will turn this over to you. And welcome. Thank you a ton. And, uh, thank you everyone for giving us this time. And when I say us, um, I mean, uh, Jen Furpo, who is my colleague down the hall and the many council members who are also on that I know will pick up what I'm missing in terms of a healthy overview. And just one other thing is, um, we have a class going on. We have a few classes going on so it might get a little loud and it won't, it just for a second though, everybody's moving along. And I can mute if it gets too distracting, but mostly I'll just plow right through. So let me, I want to say, uh, when I talked to a ton a few days ago, where we landed was, uh, yes, let's start that discussion, uh, tonight. Um, I think that the nature of the report, it's comprehensive. It's gets very specific and it focuses only on rule 13 and in service training, but nonetheless if I had, you know, if I had a few weeks, I would probably be drilling down with a pretty hardy slide deck for you and walk you through, uh, a lot more. I think what's appropriate for tonight is to give you an overview of the work a little bit about how it started, what we have going on here, um, what our plan is. Uh-oh. It's, um, it's haunted. It's haunted. The academy is haunted. So that happens a lot. Or it's just, you know, the way it is. Um, so a summary I think is the most appropriate and I really am open, you know, to questions as we move along and I'll ask Jen to kind of help me facilitate that. A-ton, I know that you're very good at it, but I did listen to your last meeting and I heard you put your foot down on having to multitask in 10 different ways. So I think, um, I, you know, I appreciate that, but if you really, really, if you want to stop me and ask a question, you can. And there are, there's a lot in this audit that I, um, have to go back and refer to. So that's also an, um, an offer from us to you that if there's more that you want to hear, if there's more detail that you want us to get into, we can, we can come back and do our homework in the meantime. So, uh, I'll just jump right in. So the state auditor's office contacted me last summer and, uh, I started, uh, April of 21, but I really don't really remember the first six months. It was kind of a blur. So it was, uh, one of maybe 50 things that were priority last summer in terms of trying to coordinate how we would just jump into responding to an audit that we were very open to. I think one, uh, you know, anyone who knows anything about the council and the academy will know that it's sort of notoriously underfunded that, um, it has been operating a little bit like an island and, uh, coming from an organization where folks can get lost in the training world, you kind of have to have all those, um, connections to decision makers in order to get resource. So I want you to have a visual of what the work looks like here. A lot of times people get the council confused with the operations of the police academy and how the academy is staffed. And then, um, in addition to that, um, a lot of people think that the only thing that we do for training here is, is the basic training. And that's, uh, that's a heavy lift anyway, but it's not the only thing that, that we do. And given that it's, um, independent or not under another state agency, we don't have a business office. We don't have an IT department. We don't have a policy unit. And, uh, there are, I think there are a couple of legislators last year that referred to it as mom and pop. And though I don't really love that description because it's very professional and we're moving through a lot of changes, it's kind of accurate in terms of how, um, the staff have had to move through transition and leadership, um, unfunded mandates, um, you know, asking for technology and resources to get us into the, really the 21st century in terms of alternative pathways to training, et cetera. That wasn't easy. And so, um, for a number of reasons, including some of the challenges I just described, this audit was, uh, we welcomed it. And anyone who's been through an audit knows that it's an enormous amount of work for the, you know, for staff. It's a lot of legwork and producing documents. And, uh, we were already, you know, this was already a concern for me and it was shared by the directors that there were, we were missing a lot of internal policies and that there were, um, procedures and guidelines that had been put in place in the absence of formal policy over years and met, and, and it's not unusual in this kind of culture that things become rule without actually being written down. And that was another reason for us to, um, dial it back and really figure out with the help of the auditors. What, in fact, is it that we are required to do? And who required it? When was it required? And, and in some cases we couldn't, we couldn't find anything. There was, um, uh, there was some sorting out of the direction that they were going to take in the beginning, though they made it clear that their focus was on Rule 13, which is our in-service requirements for law enforcement. We still, it still took us a few months to not, um, sort of fight the, the urge to want to explain content of training or, um, or instructional strategies or access to training. And they had to, they reminded all of us, including the agencies that they worked with, that this was really the most basic assessment. What were we mandated to do and, um, how did we record it? And that also we, as any of you who have read the full audit will see that recording training is really, uh, a challenge. This wasn't shocking to me. It can be complicated. Um, I certainly worked through these kinds of issues and, and other training positions. And it comes down to, um, what we bump up against when we mandate training by time, we're not measuring skill and proficiency. And I'm sure I sound like a broken record to many of you because you've heard me say this so many times and I'll probably keep saying it. But that is what, you know, that is one thing that was flushed out through this process is when, when, um, when law enforcement attends, uh, uh, attends a training either in person or remotely or online, that the hours were being tracked and they were uh, attested to and sent into the police academy from the agency head who really, um, submitted an annual affidavit that their folks were attending this number of trainings and for this many hours. And so some of the themes that came out of this one is how do we measure hours? For example, if, uh, ATON has a training online and, um, I get on and finish it in five minutes, but it's an hour training. Am I attending five minutes of training or am I attending an hour of training? And if we, um, if we advertise a training that's 2.5 hours, um, but we have very few participants and we move through the content quickly and it's over in an hour and a half. Is it two and a half hours or is it an hour and a half? And these, uh, these are all, this is not just us. This is, this is any high liability training where you start looking into how you, um, measure, um, training hours, not just in what we call podium trot time, but also, um, it becomes an issue with things like overtime and travel. So if you go to a training from eight to four and, uh, you take lunch for an hour, do you count the lunch hour if you're, if you have submitted 12 hours of training from your agency because it's two hours to drive there. Is that your training day? Because it might be the day that you were paid for to be a training or is it attending training? So, uh, it's not unusual for us to have to sort this kind of thing out. We've done it before. Um, it was, uh, certainly a concern for me and, um, and in the bigger picture outside the audit, this is the training model that I'm encouraging all of us to, to look at, which is training to proficiency and training to competency. And that means that from the policy level down, we have to be very clear what we want staff to be able to do when they finish training. And that, um, I would say that probably of all the staff time that went into this audit, that was, um, the one topic that we discussed the most that we knew that we were going to have to provide more guidance on and, um, and here's the other thing about, here's the other thing about the council. We would go to address one issue and then find a whole, a whole host of other problems that need to be solved. So it's not as easy as just changing the requirement for numbers of hours, but then we needed to, you know, we needed to look into, let's say it was, um, something like, um, use of force training, for example, where you would have scenarios associated with it. The challenge is, are you, you know, how do you measure scenario hours and, uh, what topic do you put them in? That's a general theme with regards to in service training. The rest of the audit had to do with, um, tracking and, and our response to, to that really was, um, again, we, we knew this was a challenge and one of the things that the auditors had advised us of is this human error is a large part of why we need to really move to, uh, software and training tracking systems that you can't, that you can input what you're doing and then it keeps it forever, but there are still some systems including us that are sending out paper certificates and, um, even entering time into our own system, it's tedious work and mistakes happen and those mistakes can happen on the other end, including from the agencies and I know, I, I know that that was also, um, I believe they chose 12 agencies and they found some issues and a few of them, um, my overall sense of the, of the mistakes that were made were, was that they were just that, that they were mistakes. Um, they weren't issues of integrity. I do think though, um, moving forward that we, while we tighten this up, we need to be very clear what we mean when we, when we say training and that, that's a value statement that sometimes gets applied, not just, not just with the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, but I think everywhere. So, um, awareness training is not training. That is a meeting or a discussion and for purposes of transferring information and skills with it, we need to be very careful when we send folks to search, to events that have topics attached to them, that we, that we are mandating that something comes out of it and awareness training and high liability arena is extremely hard to measure and that happens a lot. The, uh, you know, some, and some trainings are not trainings. They're meetings. They're, they're just meetings and, and meetings are okay. The traditional thinking around this, I mean, it goes back to, I'm dating myself, but when I first started attending training well over 20 years ago, there, there was no online training. There was no Google. There was no remote learning. And so training was a place you go. And there weren't that many topics. And so self-directed learning didn't really exist in that environment because access to training was really difficult to have. Now there are, um, you know, a dozen more choices that people can choose and, uh, that causes some issues in terms of consistency, um, relevance and, uh, and tracking as well. Then there are other areas that influence the auditors in terms of guidelines that we have to put out. One one other example is if you're an instructor and a specific topic, can you also count it as attending training? And I think to some extent you can. But again, that's an area where you can't, we couldn't, we couldn't just immediately put out a guideline one way or another. We needed to really look at the whole problem. So if I am, if I am an instructor in de-escalation and I, um, do 40 hours of instructing for the Academy, does that count as 40 hours for my in-service training? It's relevant. There's nothing in our internal policy or rule that says that you can't do that. But I think best practice would say that you would want your employee to branch out of their, you know, what they already know how to do, what they've attended as a participant and what they've shown that they are a subject matter expert in already. And they would have fulfilled 40 hours of in-service training twice. So guidance becomes more complicated. Do we, um, I think in the training world, they kind of call it double dipping. What we also have to look at is what is X, you know, what is an acceptable number of hours if you are going to do that and again, how do you measure it? Are there any questions about that so far? Okay. I've never asked you 8 on how much time I had. Well, yeah. Give it another, you know, 10 minutes or so. Okay. Sheila's got a question. Sorry. It's okay. Sheila? No worries. I have more, it might be more of a comment that might kind of stem into a question. I mean, it is a question slash that you were, um, um, moving away from the time, I guess, to talk about proficiency and competency, I think of the words that you used. And I had, I had wrote down, um, why is it more, um, about the time versus the understanding of proficiency? So I thought it was interesting that you mentioned that, but I'm kind of curious around this hours, um, from, I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. What I hear is that, um, some training is based on hours and that app, if you have, you have to have so many hours of such and such training and it's not about testing out. It's not about proficiency. It's not about competency. It's not about even necessarily fully being able to demonstrate whatever it is that you learned or got taught, but it's more about that you showed up and you spent X amount of time on it and you might get a paper certificate in the mail for that. Is that sort of what I just said in a summary? Yes. And, and for purposes of this audit, they were looking at what were mandated to do. So for example, it is in statute that um, domestic violence training every other year is 2.5 hours and it doesn't, um, it doesn't necessarily, um, dictate what the content is uh, just the time and I can tell I got that wrong because Jen's got her hand up. Jen? Jen. Yes, sorry. The, the statute actually does not assign a specific hour, uh, length of time to the annual, the the biannual domestic violence training. It simply says that the training is, um, the domestic violence training update as approved by the Criminal Justice Council. And that's a really great example of why we don't want to, um, why we want to train to the concept and not to the hour number. How did we get 2.5 hours then? I have no idea where 2.5 hours came from other than, um, the last training in, um, well the training we have going right now is 2 hours long. Um, is it FIP, is FIP 2.5? Uh, no, FIP was 2 hours. Okay, enough out of you. Yes ma'am. So, so you are saying that it's really just about the hours. And I'm just wondering who again came up with that concept. And I'm assuming like the department has adopted that and is trying to now more critically look at that is what I'm hearing. Yeah, well, I mean, it's certainly, it's not best practices in training. Um, that we know. Um, the, there are trainings that are mandated in terms of numbers of hours because we discussed it all last session. I know with FIP, so I will go back and do, you know, do that homework in terms of exactly where it came from. And I appreciate Jen speaking up because I think I've said 2.5 hours in a few different public meetings so it's good to get that corrected. But the, um, uh, the there was a lot of discussion about, you know, what like what has been happening here all along? What is what is required in our rules and what is in statute. And, um, it's certainly not a concept that it's one I understand and I've heard a lot for many years and it's happens to be, it's kind of a go to when something goes wrong. Leadership tends to say, you know what, we need 40 hours. We need like we need to fix that problem with numbers of hours or days or a week of training. And, um, for folks that have, um, run academies before, there's usually there's this sort of general sentiment that when anybody has a good idea the place to put it is in the academy and just sort of squeeze it in amongst everything else and call it a training and give it a couple hours and it's just not that easy in this arena. Um, any high liability training corrections law enforcement takes about 30 hours to develop one hour of training and that's in person training. That doesn't include, um, additional hours to form measurable scenarios and online trainings even more complex because it really ought to be around, uh, what we're building to be defendable and what's skill based. So if that's what you meant by concept, then yes. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you being candid and honest in this discussion. Yeah, my pleasure. The rest, um, the rest of so how this all links together is, um, um, all of the work that we have to do with regards to our internal policies and what we're going to require and the we is, uh, the council. There's a fair amount of work to do within the rules committee and they have been meeting for some time and Evan meeting as the chair and did an enormous amount of work and even with all of those updates, uh, we'll have to go back post audit and take a look at, um, the rules that impact what the requirements might be for this and service training. And the end service rule 13 training focuses, um, also on firearms and first aid and CPR. Domestic violence and uh, fair and impartial policing, um, use of force. Uh, they also looked at, um, the, uh, model policies for gun and war camera. Um, the CEW and the legislative requirements around tasers. And I think that's I think that's it. And I will tell you that I, you know, I could have looked and looked and looked and not found on my own and I don't, I don't know if the rest of the staff here would agree. This our responsibility to supervise the compliance of agencies around the, their consistency and posting, uh, policies. I'm not sure that we knew that that was us. We knew that we held the responsibility to make sure everyone posted them. But I don't believe we would have gotten there on our own and that these, the auditors um, are very clear that in how they interpret, um, how they interpret the law and the mandate is that we need to be supervising the consistency with these policies. And there was a fairly meaty report out from them with Joint Justice Oversight. I think last week it might have been the week before I've, I lose track of time but recent enough and, uh, they addressed that as well. They also, um, they were also pretty clear that the, my, my response to the audit was, yes, we agree. We have a lot of work to do. We knew that. It's important for me to say that out loud though I know it can be semantics but, um, in a time where we're asking folks to do more and, um, to be vulnerable and to trust and to go with change, it can be, it can be really demoralizing when folks go through an audit process and auditors come back with, with big news that the very people who have been working on this have said all along. And I want to be clear that, um, a good majority of of the staff at the Academy had been asking for assistance. They had been, um, collecting information about, uh, challenges and inconsistencies and things that didn't work and, and that, um, that goes a long way in terms of fixing these issues because if there isn't buy in then there isn't progress and there is and this is a heavy lift and the reality around this work is, um, one, you know, one, we have a lot of hope and I don't want to underestimate how important that is. We have an enormous amount of support and I don't count, um, you know, I don't count getting frustrated or complaining is not having support and we are all coming from different places and we're all having to figure out what has to happen and this has been, um, we're not fully staffed we haven't been since I got here. There's been some very predictable attrition and, uh, we think about the roughly, uh, 1300 sworn officers that we serve and that's about that's two training coordinators for level three basic training level two and two supporting training coordinators for programs and a director of training that's fully staffed we'd be at 13 um, that's a basic training academy two levels two additional levels of certification 15 committees and subcommittees 24 members of the council several legislative mandates and, like I said, um, no IT, no policy unit, no business office and nobody's complaining about that but it we just want you to know that um, this is big and the attention on this audit and the work that our DAP is doing and the work across the state is, uh, we welcome it because we would like more eyes on the direction that we're going in and the sentiment that we have to go along with it I'm going to leave it there anytime since your hands up and you didn't see it sorry about that. Nope, that's okay. I am curious we are mandated to be in a kind of support position to the council is there are there things that the are you all the council need from the our DAP at this point that you can name or is this something that frankly the council needs to work on first and then that's a question that might be asked at a later date. Well, I, I, I did you know I, I did listen to your last meeting and I, I do understand the concern around um you know is, does the council need some more time to organize and their mission to make an appropriate request? Um, is this the right time for our DAP to get involved? Should you be steering it or should we I, I don't know I mean, I don't I will tell you this if anyone who wants to help yes please um we are in need of resources and we're asking for them um we identified some other areas that I think deserve some airtime for example all of the fair and impartial policing work that's happening across the state all of the training that I know that you're doing um there is not one full time fair and impartial policing trainer for law enforcement in this state. There are a couple folks that are doing training in addition to their jobs but there's an awful lot that the council's being asked to do that we're being asked to do and there is not a position in the whole state not just not here but in the whole state and uh again that you know there's there are responsibilities that we have with regards to traffic stop data um uh full curriculum assessment there is a pretty considerable that we're going to make with regards to certification and accreditation that's going to take about three years and we want to do it more quickly than that so I think let me just put the question back to you and say what do you feel like doing because we need everything and we're we're pretty ready to um to give some direction there I would guess the best answer I could give you on that at this moment is that the person who was working on that in the subcommittee because we broken into subcommittees at the moment um and that subcommittee that was focusing on the academy and the council was made up of Evan and myself I'm assuming it may well be Tim now who has just come on board and this is his first day so Tim I don't know but I have a feeling you and I need to sit down and have a conversation about this um and I I think we may need a little bit of time in order to gather ourselves together because as you probably heard last week we were still waiting to hear last month I mean we were still waiting to hear back really what the council needed from us so you're throwing it back to us catches us a little bit by surprise me throwing it back to you yes you're saying I'm gonna throw it back to you you would say what do you want to do well I think let me I don't that sounds sort of rude when you put it like that like I didn't no no no no I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude no no no not you me me I think I think um if I understand for our DAP it is to you know it is to give direction to the council is that right with for yes the training okay so I'll say that you know if if we if we were going to move in the direction of what I just laid out in terms of being competency based and focused on proficiency then then maybe a place to start is a discussion around what is it that you would like what does our DAP want to see as a result of training great we can do that thank you that was easy it wasn't for me I'm sorry it took me no no no that was fine that was really clear that was great thank you thank you very much Heather are there other questions from people anything from anybody do understand yeah I just had a question if our DAP is going to work on what you would like to see as for outcomes or training I guess what who would determine what happens if those are not met is that more from our DAP recommendations or would that be like well we didn't meet it but they had the training and let's move on the reason why I'm saying is because what Sheila was saying was that two hours that's the length of a movie I mean it's not really that much time when there's a lot of data against profiling and other things that are happening within the state it just doesn't seem like it's that ample of a time maybe I'm off a little bit but I just was wondering that if there's outcome and outcome measures what happens if they're not met I guess with the individual officer or the program because I know they have a set amount of time to go through the academy right I mean it's not like it's a yeah you know I mean like you have a leeway you know because I mean classes probably start and then they end but so I was just curious maybe that's too deep right now but I just didn't know how that would work that's all I'm asking I think you're asking me right yeah okay well first of all the what has to happen on the job really needs to be determined by agencies and the practitioners in the training world it's really about how to implement the change that we want to see and and training really guides along how to operationalize the change in policy the shift in mission or the shift in practices and there's any there there's a broad direction that we could go in or there are specific topics and when I say broad direction I mean things like if we we are moving we are moving towards a trauma informed academy and that means that we would be delivering content and scenarios that would be measurably informed that we would have a full review of all of our lesson plans that this practice would be embedded into our instructor development and that would also be measurable that that would be to me a broader project or there or we can narrow it down and look at one one module or one set of activities like just scenarios and building up scenarios that are that we have a system for in Vermont that we know are one relevant job that to our trauma informed that are inclusive that cover all the bases in terms of being defendable training that's a big that's a big project but it's not huge it's a little smaller or you can take it right down to one actual topic which is I think what the fair and impartial policing committee under the council is working on is how to direct training content and training content for the academy and so for purposes of this explanation when I say academy I mean the level 3 basic training I'm not even getting into in service training mandates or the level 2 which is what people consider part time officers or any or any of the hundreds of hours of other projects in time Mark what's up family how y'all doing it's a night yeah thanks for taking this out I appreciate the follow up and the follow through and it's cool to see some familiar faces and some not so familiar and Heather I appreciate your candor and just how straightforward you're taking this it's pretty refreshing just to get it from the straight and I think my concern is the fact that what we're dealing with is we're dealing with some challenges that are clearly systemic and even if you clean this up to the best of your ability and I hope you stick around for another 10 years or so but after you're gone who's to say it won't fall apart again and I don't mean to be pessimistic but I'm trying to make a point here is that clearly there are some systemic breakdowns that have occurred within a console and I just don't want the gravity to be lost on anybody you know I'm not subject to Stockholm syndrome because I'm not here very much but I would just say that you know we're talking about 1,300 officers in 79 agencies and we're talking about 628,000 folks across the state and we're talking about their safety we're talking about title 20 2358 and 23 60 I believe it is on partial policing policy and race data collection and training and this is the reason why this group was established when we went in and created this group in 2017 the primary reason was because we were concerned about compliance to title 20, 2358 and 2368 I think it is or something like that 2358, 2360 that's the reason why the RDAP was created and you were created as an oversight committee they just didn't give us that so that's why they called you advisory how do we know we wrote the bill so I think so that's what's problematic from this community former RDAP vice chairs perspective and as I was reading through the minority report for those of you who've been around you probably know what that is I did see that there was some very little attention that was given to this matter per se but I just don't want it to be lost on you that this is this is real and this is not and Heather this is not one of those things it's like get her you know where's the pitch for it's not that conversation but clearly there's some guidance in some oversight that's just not there that not to beat the council over the head but at least give the council some guidance on what these statutes actually mean and what their statutory responsibilities are to make sure we don't have breakdowns like this in the future and that we don't have to rely on individuals to be able to ensure that compliance is is sustainable and what that means is that that means consistent oversight to provide that that hand if you will and I think that I don't think it's fair to Heather actually to ask Heather oh what do you want us to do I don't think it's fair to have I don't think it's fair to you at all I think that this is a joint joint justice oversight slash rdap conversation and and I think that the I think that the there should be prescribed to the to the council very very clear very clear guidance on exactly what the expectations are in terms of providing clarity to title 20 as it pertains to them that's the least we could do for them for that for the console I mean before we start talking about giving them the resources that they need to get the job done I think the only other thing that I see in this is that there seems to be and I talked to TJ about this Aaron before he left is is that there's this relationship that the attorney general has here the attorney general's office has with the alleged oversight or some type of you know there's there's this thing that the attorney general has in a role in you know in policing and when they step in across the state if they still need to do so I know that there's a provision where they've been required been called upon to say for example review the fair and partial policing policy before the console blah blah blah but there's always this the attorney general's a part of it but then they're outside of it at the same time and I think that that's ambiguous too and I don't think that really helps y'all at all because theoretically you would think that the attorney general would have a role here his office your office rather excuse me would have a role in some type of oversight apparatus as it pertains to the the console but the attorney general's on the console so I think that that should probably be considered maybe you know respectfully maybe the attorney general shouldn't be on the console for that reasons and maybe more maybe work in collaboration with the console whatever the final solution is I hope that the RDAW steps back and gives this some careful consideration I would kindly ask you request that you give it some additional careful consideration and maybe not try to work to a resolution tonight step back think about what's hanging in the balance here and the gravity that this has on our communities across the state because when we have folks that could potentially be missing in service and we're specifically talking about in service training when we created this panel this the RDAW or policy or data collection when we're talking about all these things and these requirements we put them down for a reason and that's that thing we call public safety and we're talking about consistency so hopefully somebody can have some conversations with somebody in house government operations house senate government operations because I know house government operations rule 25 is oversight I know that I know that they didn't do a very good job of that in the past but they're gone but I'm hoping that we have some oversight conversations we certainly will be coming back this legislative session having a similar conversation thanks for the time thank you Mark Wichee why don't we finish this particular conversation up with you so we can move on to the rest of the agenda thanks Mark Wichee sorry can you hear me now yep I was talking to the ether a little bit so just first want to show my appreciation Mark thank you you know I'm a recent new member to RDAW so it's nice to sort of be brought back to the original mission and sort of contextualize our existence and definitely had on my notes sort of like thinking about like oh what I heard a lot is about resources not just about you know policy changes but also like you know with all these with changes always comes like okay how do we get it done then which I think Mark was was partially talking about and something else that I also had on my notes that Mark was also referencing but just want to come at it from a different angle here is the concept of the amount of responsibilities under our police forces currently one of the things that we consistently hear from all sides right is that the police are burdened with too much responsibility whether it be mental health or solving homelessness or you know yada yada it's all under the police force so as we think about giving resources for training I think it's important for us to also consider what are what are we giving resources to training for and how much of it are we actually also concentrating on making sure that there are resources to being able to diversify the ways that we approach public safety because this is sort of to Mark's point the greater system that we're talking about we're not just talking about a little bit of aspect here so and also appreciating Heather really appreciating you coming in here to talk to us about the report sometimes I look at large documents and I'm like oh is this I was supposed to read holy moly so just really appreciating you breaking it down and sharing your perspective and yeah so just wanted to put in those notes definitely trying to lift Mark's message up a little bit with a little bit of my own perspective on it thank you hey thank you Eitan can I just respond quickly and let me get to your meeting to Michie and to Mark I appreciate I appreciate all that you pointed out and and I should have brought this up earlier the audit is the business of making sure that we're headed in the direction that we want to be in and Vermont it's the business end of it I didn't talk about the agencies that go above and beyond mandates for training and professionalism and I didn't get to I didn't get to the stuff that I would love for all of you to come and see in terms of where we're headed with scenarios and how you can see this skill based training going in another direction I want to say this we have one police academy in the state and that is an incredible opportunity Ohio has something like I think like 50 we have one for all law enforcement agencies the opportunity for us to standardize in a way that we message not just skills but mission and sentiment and safety and community and inclusion it's right in front of us and that can happen here and it's not going to be the executive director saying we can't do anything unless we have five positions I was fortunately raised in a department that does not ever find that funny that you know we have to we have got to innovate and we have got to find ways to inspire people that are tired to remind them that we can do more than we think that we can do and to remember that while we're now with the legal ramifications are and how much things cost that someone is waiting for us right now someone vulnerable someone young someone who's waited too long and someone who needs to see change and those folks don't really care about data and policy and they want they want to feel better and they want to be safer and I think that this is the place where we can we can show how to do that and that everything can be trained that when we talk about de-escalation training that's a broad term we can break that down what is the quality of the interaction with everybody how are we how are we measuring our language when we when we bring interpreters into a situation are we also interpreting body language and culture and pain these are that's what I mean when I say proficiency and skill I don't mean take a you know a 50 answer multiple multiple question exam I mean real life scenarios that people from the community can see you know if that was handled that way it would have gone much better or we would have been better off so the media you know the audit gives me anxiety because it's an audit but but I think the possibility gives me a lot of optimism and I really appreciate your time tonight I'm sorry I went on for so long but you you inspired me so thank you all right thank you Heather thank you and just so everyone knows Tim and I already starting to talk about when we're going to meet so if there are other people it had only been Evan and I on the subcommittee that was planning on doing this work if there are others who have been inspired by what Heather is talking about feel free to join us there's nothing planned yet in terms of scheduling but I just want to put the excuse me I just wanted to put the invitation out there okay thank you thanks Heather the next item that we need to look at it feedback from the panel on the draft language access proposal that was sent out after the last meeting you will recall that executive director Davis asked for feedback on this I sent it to you right after the meeting along with a presentation by Jennifer Pullman well and others I'm assuming communication justice in Vermont and so I am opening the floor up what for feedback that is correct correct Susanna correct okay feedback this was part of your homework we need the jeopardy theme music for moments like this says I just want to say thank you to the committee for taking this up it's something that Susanna and Senator Rom were really helpful with thinking about and our hope was just to shine a light and a spotlight on some of the pieces that really need to be bolstered and really interesting findings that we had so I didn't do the amazing work that our intern did but I think she really flagged that Vermont's a little bit different than other states in that we don't have that secondary language that's so dominant and how do we how do we think about how we do this moving forward so I will be quiet but thank you for thinking about this piece and thinking about language access and it's something that we are really passionate about thank you witchy I'm just going to be an honest person right now and definitely missed that it got buried in my email and was did not have a time to to review it so just know that I will be reviewing it on on my own and we'll probably send comments to Susanna apart unless we talk about it again next next agenda and then I can prepare by then well we may do that so I'm sorry my bad I was just going to say that I can also re-send the online form I think it's a three question form where you can also provide feedback on it if you would rather provide that in writing but I am available for anyone's comments all constructive critique is welcome why don't we send that out too I think doing all of it is probably a good idea Sheila I had a thanks a ton and thanks Susanna for doing this I had a couple of sort of feedback comments on the document one of the things that I was kind of curious about was when it said on section four consider an interpretation I was I was just wondering about the thought of being bilingual and being able to interpret or two very different things and I see that kind of being starting to be recognized in this document but not really fully and I feel like it might be conflated or assumed that if you're bilingual then that can transfer into interpretation skills and when you really are doing professional interpretation it depends on what you mean there's different types and different levels of interpretation so I'm just sort of curious about I have a question around that and if you all have thought about that and if you have is there understanding how to tease out what we might mean by interpretation because sometimes it's perfectly acceptable but on a legal level and on a professional level on different types of levels it sometimes does it transfer so that was one of the comments and questions that I kind of had and I don't know if you want me to I think I'll just do one at a time or do you want me to say the other ones that I had which document are you referencing the one that looks like a chart that has the 26 ish recommendations that's correct and in section 4 all the way yeah that's where I pick it up I think it's referenced a few other places it could be applicable as well but again I just learned about that thank you for that the short answer is yes that is a big part of the thinking for us is to make sure that it's clear in the final document that being bilingual and being suited to interpret are not the same thing you'll find that at a few different points in this summary document for example there are a couple of items in there that recommend standards quality standards so that you don't have people who just walk around saying I did I lived in France for six weeks I can translate things but that you actually have a system that allows for people to have proper education in this field and that also gives a recourse to people who use interpretation services if there's a problem with the quality or service from an interpreter or translator so it is important to us to make that distinction you can't just call up a local delivery place and say hey send me someone who speaks language so the short answer is yes we are aware and that will be part of the final document that's great my next comment is in section 5 and the third column bulleted it says paraphrasing my multilingual liaisons and encourage their adequate compensation and training I would just get rid of encourage I think they need and should have adequate compensation and training so I would like to void out and encourage and actually give people a decent wage and that's part of my other question too I know that in this document references for DMs and some other things in there but I'm also very concerned for that as well and wondering how that will be teased out within this document because often people who are multilingual will be what I'm going to be calling tokenized or used for gifts their skill their being of life and really never compensated for that so I'm really curious because I see again this document sort of referencing that but then I'm wondering how that will tease out in the final sort of completion of this so to that point I can speak as a person who has been routinely utilized as a translator in different jobs that I've held what this document is saying is that if you're going to expect state staff to be translating or interpreting that that should be factored into their job expectations and they should be paid accordingly that's true on the front end during the recruitment phase and also afterward if you're modifying a person's duties so that's what those references are to things like per diems flat fees or other forms of compensation to ensure that state staff who are expected to translate or interpret are being compensated fairly so the point you made earlier about multilingual liaisons and encouraging their fair pay the reason it says encourage is because this is a document that makes recommendations to state government because the state government does not hire the multilingual liaison that work in the school district and because of the advent of local control in Vermont we are limited in what we can force the school districts to do when it comes to who they're paying and for how much so what we can do is encourage very strongly the school districts to follow adequate pay protocols another thing that may not necessarily I don't even remember if it's in this document or not but something that we've submitted to the governor's office for our policy priorities includes a school level assessment for multilingual liaison so that we can properly get a sense of what the need is around the state and make sure that this profession has adequate support and education this is also something that the racial equity task force put out as one of its many recommendations a couple of years ago is deploying that school level we are estimating it will take between $100,000 to $250,000 to conduct but we are still gathering some information related to that great thank you I just have a couple of more questions I don't know if you want me to ask them or not no I think you should I'm not sure that we have others so I think go ahead as quickly as you can yes so section 11 all the way over I'm just so excuse me for my ignorance but it says how can we ensure state employees can respond promptly who exactly are responding to these type of complaints it really depends there's a lot of there's a very broad swath of people who receive complaints that might be for example hey I was visiting your state parks and I had a complaint about the adequacy of the bathroom in the state park and they might be complaining on the parks oh my gosh what is it Forest and Park department or they might be putting in a formal complaint with I don't know the Department of Public Safety saying my civil rights were violated or it could be a complaint with the tax department saying one of your compliance agents called me up on the phone and was disrespectful or whatever it is so there's a lot of people AGO's office I mean everyone there's a lot of places that take complaints and so they each have different mechanisms for how they route those complaints who's responding when they respond through what through what communications means right so for example one department might have a form that you fill out that says hey call me back this is my phone number etc another one it might be that they only communicate by email and so you may be only you know back and forth once a day so the short answer is everyone is taking these complaints and that's one of the reasons that if we're creating a unified standardized policy trying to create uniformity in the way that we receive complaints in various languages spoken and unscoken it means we also have to know how to I don't know digest those inputs so that then we can reach back out to the person in a way that is timely so if someone sends us a video upload of them using ASL signing their complaint to us we have to first get the notification that we got a complaint in have somebody sit and look at it recognize hey this is someone who's signing an ASL get someone who presumably is on contract with the state to view that video and again depending on the department they're talking about this could be sensitive information we don't know so we have like disclosure and privacy issues so all of that kind of needs to be figured out and that's what that bullet point that's more of an internal note to us but that's what that bullet point is really referencing thank you appreciate that and the last thing I want to say ask is around section 24 and I mean I guess it's a little more comment slash question around protocol may be different for state and pointed interpreters versus complaints made against independent interpreters and I understand the logic behind that my question is not wanting to create a us them you know the state as though I respect all those of you who work for the state kudos to you thank you those of us who don't work for the state kudos to us too and so I'm wondering how that will be if there's discussion around how that will be laid out so there isn't a us them or will the people who are not who are independent be more aligned with the state expectations because if you're calling on them through state a lot of times there is I guess certain maybe regulations or requirements that the state might have I'm just a little bit curious and confused about what the discussion around that might be yeah so the reason that that's in there it's not because we're creating and us them it's because there necessarily exists one because if the state is hiring people to translate or interpret then they're on contract with us so they're accountable to us so if they mess up then we have recourse for dealing with it but if somebody comes for services and they have their own interpreter I'm not going to force a person to say you have to use my interpreter that we're providing that state it's like if you have an indigent defendant who has a state appointed attorney that's one thing if you have a defendant who has a private attorney that's another and so for me to be able to have recourse to deal with the person a person's complaint like if we provide an interpreter the state and there's a problem with that person's service then we have recourse for how to deal with it but if it's someone who's not hired by the state then we may be limited in what we can do to address the problem that may be their organization or their employer who has to deal with it because it may be a private right of action I don't know so the reason that that's in there is because the protocols that we can follow for addressing any positive or negative things related to state funded interpretation services is going to have to be different than the protocols for someone who's not employed by us and therefore less accountable to us so this is in there not so that we're creating in us then but just to account for the fact that we're not going to be every interpreter's boss thank you so much for answering my questions that's all that I have I want to say that I really like this document and I like the way that it's laid out for me having to read a lot of stuff and it helps to I like the layout it's clear it's a lot more simplified for me and I was able to get through it and understand so thank you for answering my questions and good work on this particular document thank you Sheila thank you for giving it a close read as well appreciate that very much well it's a bit I have I don't have necessarily an answer to this but I'm wondering if this was considered at all because I don't see it in the document so if it's there just let me know and highlight what number it is but specifically within DCF we see kids translating for their parents and there have been a few situations and I'm happy to connect back with the staff member who is specifically engaged with this instance but youth translating for their parents during hearings and I'm concerned about if there's been any conversations about that and how potentially we could approach that in a better way we had concerns about the youth potentially understanding what was going on appropriately to translate for their parents and obviously had serious concerns about that and voice that to the court system so just highlighting that is something that we've seen as a problem yeah thanks for saying that that I think relates back to Sheila's first question about not everyone who's bilingual is necessarily suited to be an interpreter and one of the more recent cases that DCF had about that I was grateful to be pulled into that and we had conversations between DCF and the courts who were running the that particular case in question this is something that's going to be this is part of the reason that we are creating unified language access well I mean we've been talking about this for three years just getting around to it but this is going to be what this is one of the big pieces of that is just making sure that if people are bringing interpreters it's because there is an appropriate pool of professionals who can do this work who have sector specific knowledge right the specialized terminology and specialized interactions that happen in justice situations versus health care clinical situations etc for example education interpreting is an entirely different animal people think of it as just one big thing but that's a very nuanced space so yes we've definitely considered it we know that some people end up bringing family members including children to interpret out of a out of a need or a thought of desperation because they don't have other options and we don't want to see more of that we also don't want to be paternalistic and tell people who is and is not allowed to be their interpreter as well so we're really walking a line between not disempowering people by disallowing trusted members of their community to interpret but also making sure that people don't make those choices because they think that they have to so for us the ideal outcome is being able to provide people options that are vetted and trustworthy and making sure that we have the resources in place to provide the service if they need us to provide it or if we want us to provide it you know this is we're creating a more perfect world but we're not creating a perfect world and so I know that there are going to be situations where this probably ends up happening again and in those circumstances I also want to be able to see the system have built-in mechanisms to address that right oh hey you know what this hearing started and finished and we had a child interpreting and a decision was made so if the respondent was fully aware of her rights you know I know that this is difficult for people in the court system to imagine but I would love to basically see the equivalent of a do-over in circumstances like that right so I think that there are bigger systemic things that happen outside of the creation of a language access plan that also need to be in place so that if language access fails there is recourse not just within the language access protocols but also outside of them Okay Rebecca Thanks Seaton Susanna I've shared some of my comments already on this chart previously I just wanted to build upon a couple that haven't been touched upon here tonight and it's focused on seven no eight nine which is technology and resources and they're recognizing that people of color are more likely to rely on mobile phones or tablets to access the internet and then nine of course talks about the three branches of government using different platforms to access remotely right the legislature using Zoom exactly using Teams, judiciary using WebEx and then the recommendation there is to try to build uniformities I see the recommendation my comment here is that that I'd like to see focus on uniformity of access itself sort of building upon the themes that Sheila built talked about othering what I see happening in the judiciary let's assume there is a uniform platform used across the branches that others and the non-government you know litigants are only able to access by way of phone so putting them in a distinct disadvantage and not having equal access fundamentally and so I'd like to see sort of that interplay between eight and nine sort of addressed head on in terms of things building consistency and where that's not possible how to develop policies and protocols to set up the record to make it clear to try to adjust accordingly second are also related to all these concerns about competency and practice best practices not best practices using children as interpreters what we're still seeing is a failure in the judiciary specifically failure to record these court proceedings of the actual court interpretation so that there is no way to check later on whether or not the interpretation was actually meeting the standards was actually providing accurate interpretation so I don't know if I missed that is Susanna but sort of this emphasis on ensuring that again the checks and balances but just the basic one of having a record policies of making sure that happens thanks yeah thank you for that I wasn't aware of those lapses in recording for interpretation do you mean where the interpreter is a in the zoom or is physically in person where where there is simultaneous interpretation going on in court proceedings it is not a standardized policy in the judiciary to record those court interpreting interpretations so it's it's arguably lost right it's going on and so while we're having it in the moment there's no way to check whether they're accurate or not unless consecutive interpretation is getting captured in the record but where it's happening at the same time and there are a lot of advantages to simultaneous interpretation the flow is smoother right and that's a great development but what we're seeing in the judiciary is not the corresponding necessity of recording that separately okay yeah that seems to me like something that we can absolutely figure out and I would be very interested just to learn more about what you're saying so that we can make sure that we find a way to address it the other thing that you mentioned was the differences in platforms and what I'll say is that if we do end up well I'll say this if we were to go with a one platform across all state government the one we would recommend is probably zoom of the screen from zoom and it appears to be the one that has the greatest accessibility features so that's probably the one that we would recommend but you know I also don't know that anybody would take that recommendation so the alternative that we put in there you'll see is you know less desirable but it basically says if you're not going to do one platform then at the very least make sure that everybody knows how to use all three of the ones we're using and I'm saying three but it's really free with an asterisk because we also have for example I'm aware of committees that you go to meetings right we have believe it or not some people still meeting on Google Meet so it really is quite an array and in the absence of a unified platform the very least I think we can do is make sure that people can access the various ones with making them use but I'm also very concerned about what you said about the potential due process issues around not being able to see the proceedings and we being on by phone particularly in a state that has broadband issues I mean you know even if you knew how to use the platform who's to say you can connect Judge Morrissey yeah I was just going to add on what Rebecca just said in terms of capturing making sure to capture what is being translated this comes up almost every time when you're talking about people who are using sign language interpreters that there are no there's not really a running video being made in most courthouses of that conversation that's taking place between the the litigant and the interpreter so when there's a hearing involved with people who are using sign language it creates an additional layer that needs to be addressed and I recall a hearing that I had a termination of parole rights hearing where the parent was deaf and we had hired video people to come in and videotape the proceeding so that we actually had a record of what was being done in terms of the interpretation so when you're talking about folks who are hearing impaired or deaf or using sign language interpreters I think that's something that needs to be addressed as well Elizabeth yeah I just have one also quick addition I'm wondering about any other kinds of supports for translators as well in particular thinking about translators that you know our division might utilize and wanting to make sure that they don't feel like they are you know dropped in the middle of something and then also wanting to make sure that they're paid appropriately for those supports right like if they access support services within DCF to learn about a certain situation then making sure that they're paid for that time I'm not sure I think I'm going on a little bit of a ramble here but essentially what I'm trying to express is that staff in our division it can be very mentally difficult their day-to-day work is trying for them and I would assume that that would be the same for many of the translators as well are you saying making sure that we're compensating people adequately for the continuing education that they're going to need to be able to do translation work yes that and then also supporting them on if they need additional resources and help as after they have conducted that work and you're talking about state staff or any any interpreters we engage in right like especially if there's an interpreter but to your point where we have a state interpreter who has access to certain services but there's a translator or interpreter who is being utilized from the community ensuring that they have access to the same services that our state staff would have regarding mental health etc yeah I I would love to think a little bit more we've been having this conversation with a number of community interpreters there's a bit of a coalition that has formed on translating and interpreting and one of the questions that has come up is is the state going to pay for people to get licenses is the state going to pay for employee education is the state going to pay external entities who profit interpreting companies etc to complete these requirements or for their license there needs to be a real conversation about ownership of responsibility for example I am routinely asked to give counsel or training or consultation services to corporate in Vermont who really need to be paying somebody to do this work but they know that Susana always says yes to everyone and never charges anybody for employee and so I think that we need to understand the line between what should the state be providing to external partners and what do those external partners need to step up and take on so I think the answer is yes with an asterisk I just want to make sure that like any other industry we're providing the appropriate supports and the appropriate resources but also allowing them to meet their obligations as well thank you Aaron and then let's move on this is excellent Susana I just had one I'm not sure where to put it but one addition might be to make sure that folks who are using interpretation or translation have an opportunity to object to any particular interpreter or translator either because they can't understand that person or because maybe there's some concern about confidentiality or something to do with a relationship such that then they feel they can't be as forthcoming or that their voice isn't going to be heard in an accurate way it's a small world when we're using community interpreters that sometimes people feel as though they don't have a choice in terms of who the interpreter is and I would say that would be an important choice that people should have yeah I agree thank you for that we have one in there that includes that kind of a provision for interpreters who may be worried about a conflict of interest or other objection that they may have to interpreting but it is important to make sure that that's highlighted for the person receiving those services as well thanks for that Susanna can I ask that you still send the comment sheet out yes okay because that would be helpful because I get a sense that things are going to occur to people between now and the next meeting is there anyone else who has something okay thanks Susanna of course alright we it's time for executive decisions because we have 11 minutes so I'm going to apologize to Rebecca and the second look subcommittee and to the community safety reviews from which he is sharing and you guys will be at the first in December and I want to spend our last 10 minutes well first off let me remind you I wrote I believe in an email we're not going to meet on the 8th of November no matter what the agenda says it is election night we're not doing it we will meet in December so I just want to point that out before launching into what I think we can perhaps do in the 10 minutes left to us I obviously put too much into this agenda and I am sorry for that but I would like to finish up with the discussion of the proper definition of the term racial disparities for those of you who do not recall it was it was I believe it was in the minutes racial disparity is defined as existing in the criminal justice system when the proportion of a racial slash ethnic group within the control of the system is greater than the proportion of such groups in the general population this is something that I was referred to by the council of state governments as I said I would look that up or get in touch with them about that and this is where I was directed this is an article from an article from 2000 reducing racial disparity in the criminal justice system manual practitioners and policy makers something we looked at in 2019 for that report comments feelings is this something we can live with Tim didn't really have a question I'm sorry I did I don't know how to keep the hand raised I have to work on that go ahead then I did discuss this with Evan briefly and I did look at the definition and one thing that we I think think about on the prosecution side is disparities across the spectrum within the system but also with I think we were talking about Evan and I were having this discussion in contact with the system in multiple capacities and when I'm saying that I'm talking about a lack of certain disparities I'm sorry my dog is being kind of loud in the back but disparities with respect to victims victims advocates attorneys both prosecutors and defense attorneys and something that I used to discuss with States Attorney Tebow when I worked in Washington County was also when you're thinking about the overall impact on the system with respect to disparity who is calling the police Vermont has certain my dog is choosing to be so loud that's something that we talk about thank you is who is calling the police you know they'll respond to a phone call for a report of an incident and I think all of that ideally would be not left out of a definition of disparity and so summarized in instead of within the control to something along the lines of in contact with the system in any capacity and that's just the first concept and more of an idea thank you for that thank you anyone else so this is basically okay then oops sorry I was talking is this a definition that you already sent out or is this are we hearing this for the first time no I sent it out yes thank you alright witchy after school Elizabeth oops yeah I would just to respond to Tim's comment I would say and I think I followed up with what the federal law the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act defines as racial disparities and they refer to that as a decision point and they don't call those decision points specifically they include points to what you were saying Tim is obviously accesses into the system that aren't necessarily three or four steps beforehand so that's the phrase that they use if that's helpful at all yeah no I think that's great okay Monica I just wanted to offer that I appreciated Tim's amendment and think that that's something that we should think about okay I just realized my microphone wasn't down so here I am now can you hear me better yes absolutely well I will send it out again and when grant finishes with the minutes you all will be able to read what's been said about this what Tim has said about it and then perhaps if you're interested then work on refining it send it back to me and file it and send it back out to the entire group don't worry about that I'll get that together in other words we'll do this on email witchy I just want to clarify I did read it and I gave comments back and my comments were just feeling like it was that the definition was so I don't know like not tangible that I didn't really feel it was helpful in giving us answers on how do we like when we were trying to like especially I don't know like thinking about second chance for example like if we were to consider anyone who was affected by racial disparities I'm like what does that even mean in actual policy wise right like does it mean like okay because I'm black therefore I get a second chance right like I don't feel so so like I don't know there's something missing that lets us grab on and dictate policies based on that that's what I felt about it but I look forward to reading Tim's comments on paper and not at 8 o'clock at night when my brain is not working okay I'll do what I said I was going to do and we'll work it that way um again my oh Sheila yeah I think we're with what she said and I just wanted to say I would like a just more layman sort of definition for us and you know that can be the Webster or whatever kind of definition but I would love for us to come up with what we're working what we're working with and make it much more relatable much more experiential as well as um I mean to be able to communicate effectively the language just needs to shift okay Rebecca I wanted to uh share that I agree with what Sheila just said I'd go even more specific I think we should be very clear from whose perspective we're talking about uh for for me this is the not just all the litigants right this is not this is about the person who is charged with an offense this is about the juvenile the kiddo who has been had a delinquency file so I want I would like to have it clear that when we talk about racial disparities we're talking first and foremost those two so just share that we got more work to do on this one good to know thank you all right um anyone else on this okay again my apology for overstuffing the agenda and um I will take that under advisement for December please remember we're not meeting in November um I will send things out um by email for you um mostly around the definition here um and then of course also some more uh space for which in which you may wish to comment on the language um plan um I think that's all I have to say uh except apologies once again for the technical issues that just you know what are we going to do we thought we were going to make it easier and boy that worked well um that's on me that's my mea culpa and also we're just going to get this figured out in time for December and then come January we're going to have to figure out our in-person place because um um my joy is infinite um so anyway anyone want to move for us to go away now and maybe eat dinner chief needs his bowl of cereal I'll make that motion okay anyone want to second that all right all in favor all right all opposed all abstaining