 He is presented in 464 and 808, and it is coming to the point where I think we need to try to decide as a committee what direction we want to go on these issues. And so we've teamed these bills up together to intentionally allow us to have a conversation not only about policy and whether we think there's a reason why we need to make a change in, for instance, use of foreign policy, but also issues around training, training in cultural awareness, training in de-escalation, and, of course, issues around data collection so that we have the information at hand in order to understand what the experience of Vermonters in their interactions with law enforcement is about. What's the bill? 464 or 808, is that what you're asking for? Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay, so are you being our legislative counsel now? He's drawing, but I don't think he's doing it. He doesn't have the book. He doesn't have the book. How do you do that? I'll work on it. Yeah, can you do a quick screen for me, both on my side? Can you do a side by side? It's been a while. Do you really, are you just being a wise guy? I think he's being a wise guy. I think he's looking at the language right now. I think we need to have a discussion about what we've heard, what we think makes sense, and what we want to begin to move forward with in terms of getting language on the page. So this is just an opportunity to have some open discussion. Jim. So we've had obviously a lot of testimony and a lot of different viewpoints, but the first part on the data collection is it. Was it my understanding that we have this information, but it just doesn't go to this group? The E, that that's already collected but not necessarily shared, is that it? Maybe I can call a friend in the room. You got a friend in the room? You like the lifeline? How? How? They think I'm so much. I'm not sure. Who would you like to call? I would like to know. How do you know? How do you know? My friend from the state police. Sir, how many are questioning him? So I thought my understanding was that the E, the underlying part, was already noted somewhere on different reports, but not necessarily given to this group that's looking at all the data. So that is not one of the mandatory bits of information that's captured at traffic stops. In the traffic stop data currently, there are I think five or six required age, gender, reason for stop. So all those things, whether our search was correct, but use of force at a traffic stop is collected by our department in a separate way. It's not part of the data collection effort tracking racial demographics of traffic stops. We are collecting uses of force at all levels, whether it's traffic stop or somewhere else. I cannot speak for other departments about their collection of uses of force. Wouldn't that be pretty common sense standard at any time you have a use of force, local police, sheriff, state police that would note that somehow? Yes. Okay. So I guess my question would be how big a deal and is there any harm to sharing this as part of this report, this collection? You know, just off the cuff, I would say that it should be being collected. I don't know that this is the best place where it should be collected, but it should definitely be collected. In my personal opinion, every department should be collecting use of force data, whether it's on the ticket or else the traffic stop is not, this is one instance where force could be used. I hope you have any thoughts on death. What's in for on death right now? Yes. I did meet with Representative Donahue and we came up with some additional language in E that we were just looking at. We were concerned about the means by which the stop was achieved and whether a chase might have been involved or achieving the stop. And some other language around use of force, whether it resulted in bodily injury or deadly force. So there's some additional language that might be padded to that section. And this pertains to just roadside stop data, but I think we are understanding in the broader context of putting both of these bills on the table that some of the issues are not around a roadside stop, but around other interactions of law enforcement that we may want to collect data on. I think we would want to broaden the data collection to be other interventions and use of force on that. I shoot a lifeline question also. If you're on foot or in a car or anywhere if you do an attempt to evade, it comes out as a separate charity charge. If you're on foot or in a car and you attempt to elude or you don't respond, do you want to decide to charge? Yeah, sort of. It's kind of a backdoor way of asking if that is already available in a lot of situations. Enjoying the time if you attempt to elude, but there is some discretion in there. It's not good if you can't say for sure. Every time there's a decision to make, you go another person. I think you're attempting to elude. Can you're caught? Can you DWI? Maybe you're on the charge to DWI. There is some discretion. Other conversation about data collection? We also spoke to including language around collecting data for a person acting in a matter that created reason to believe a mental health crisis was occurring. And not specific language from other statute around mental health. From mental health council. But that kind of data needs to be specifically named. And finally, the thought was that this data report shall be reported annually in the legislature in addition to the council. I guess I have some concerns about trying to capture more data when the data that we have that we're getting currently, we don't have any consistency in how we capture or report it. Aren't we just going to go through an exercise that really isn't going to do what we want it to do? I'm not asking this question to just sort of throw it out there. Because even the local, because this isn't, we're talking local and everybody. We don't really have a good, robust process in place even now for the data work. It's supposed to be captured. I think we heard that it's an evolving process. That for the first year they tried to collect, they had some things in certain handwritten on the bottom of the load sort of thing. So this is definitely an evolving process. And shining some light on it and also putting into statute exactly what we want to be collecting is the opportunity that we have before us right here. Another discussion on data. We have a proposal that we work in some way to incorporate some of the issues around people who are in the parent mental health crisis. And so I think probably what we should do is actually get moved to council and see if we can get some bill language in front of the committee to take a look at this. I would have to see a link but I'm inclined not to support that. I think that's way too broad. Let's see what it looks like. Anything else on data? Do we have training in de-escalation and cross-cultural awareness as two concepts that work forward in the bill? Any discussion on that? Any thoughts that you have based on what we've heard for testimony this morning? Clarify, what do we have for policy in this area today? Anything? Glad to show you know that off the top of my head. I think we had some testimony that there is some training and after definitely hours of training off the top of my head. I think they said four hours. One of them was looking to double it to eight. But more specifically on the policy before we get into the debate. That's a separate issue. Directing the creation of a policy around use of force is a different question than training in de-escalation. I think it's a two-step process. You have a policy and then you train to do a policy. But I'm trying to understand what do we have for policy in this area today. I'm going to assume we have policy surrounding use of force in some type of de-escalation. But maybe the major can help me again. And is it do different agencies have different policies as opposed to this legislature directing a unified policy on when it's okay? That's a good point. You're provided with different phases of de-escalation. For Monsecoli's recruits in the pre-basic case, it's just the SPP and the SPP is just the SPP 16 hours of less-than-lethal or non-lethal use of force training, 26 hours of firearms training, 2 hours of fair and impartial policing training, basic training for all law enforcement in Vermont, 36 hours of firearms training, 46 hours of less-than-lethal use of force, 8 hours of communication and de-escalation, 4 hours of use of deadly force, 4 hours of less-than-lethal use of force, 8 hours of working with people in the mental health crisis, 4 hours of fair and impartial policing, 4 hours of community policing, 4 hours of responding to hate-motivated crimes. In the post-basic for all law enforcement, there's 16 hours of taser certification, 2 hours of team-to- mental health crisis and de-escalation training, 20 hours of firearms training, 28 hours of I'm sorry, this part is just for state police, 28 hours of less-than-lethal use of force training, 20 hours of firearms and 2 hours of team-to- mental health crisis and then for VSP, 8 hours of fair and impartial policing and then in service for VSP, only 4 hours not only police of force training, 12 hours firearms training and ongoing the average trooper per year attends the average 30 troopers per year attend an 8-hour update of the class for and I can print this where you can and then you'll just have it. That's actually an idea. That's a lot of non-use-of-force training, what sort of form does it take? I'm sorry, I'll say it again. The non-use-of-force training takes a whole lot of time, what sort of form does it take? Is it out of the backyard playing karate or is it classroom instruction on it? So, I would I can't recite it exactly I think it's a combination of practical so control procedures how to make high-risk car stops how to use the escalation tactics how to grow hands-on if you need to with using your firearm so it's a combination of classroom and in the field. I'm Jeref. That's part of what we move on is to increase the basic training another four weeks and that's part of that additional four weeks is much more training to advance anti-use-of-force de-escalation and use-of-force de-escalation or actual hands-on practical exercises where the police officer is actually talking to a scenario where they have a major concreptive of loneliness but into a scenario in the officer is or trooper in the case of state police is required to fight the situation to take the appropriate actions and engage on that anti-categic and just for the record the municipalities most municipalities unless you're very large and I can only assume that happens to be very large, I can't believe you can be here something. Don't receive as much training as a state police would in this because they have a pre-basic and I believe your your pulse base is a little more intense and they receive more training so it's additional and if we get all those other people getting this additional or if you go to the city the municipal department is great and I have a sense of that. So while we're talking about training is there anything that you committee have heard during testimony that makes you feel inclined to specify something with respect to training? Well just to pick up what JV just shared I remember there was some reference to training approaches and it didn't seem like there were many of them so how might you increase that in a way to allow some of the smaller agencies to have more exposure training? I think the challenge that I've seen just in all of the discussion that we've had around all of these issues is that you know there's probably a wide difference in the way that Vermont State Police handle some of these interactions versus some of the small municipal agencies and and yet we're being asked to consider law enforcement as a whole because we recognize that our community members who have interactions with our local law enforcement may be experiencing different things than what they experience when they are over by a true problem. I mean with respect to the training, I mean I understand the policy part I can find those bits in the bill but then the training component is supposed to be based on policy that we don't know what it is now and the draft is on this bill and I guess my question is there might be a cost to that which would be unknown to all of our municipalities. Right. I mean should it be more that you know the training council should come back to the channel some way with the recommendation on training? I'm just because I mean it puts it's a difficult situation as they have to come up with this policy, a model policy and then they're supposed to take training on that but we don't know what the model policy is at this point. In an angle? Yeah. I mean I agree with the policy issue. I mean I agree with that. Four hours to put in the bill is four hours. I don't know four hours gives you maybe it should be two hours maybe it should be eight hours and I think until we get a recommendation from policy and then the recommendation of the folks that do the training which requires to implement that policy I think might be premature plus there is budgetary concerns and there's been a lot of discussion whether we go to 16 weeks to 20 weeks and does this tip it to the 20 weeks which it is has a huge budget it may be good it may have to spend that money but I would think we don't know that. Policy, if you do all agencies you better follow that policy is the question that I am. Well you didn't get a report back about that. So we have some idea who's falling in and who's not. I just worry about okay you know there is all this training already. I mean it probably and I don't know the answer to this because this is not an area of expertise that it could be tweaked to be consistent with whatever policy has come up with and it may or may not require additional four hours. I mean I'd rather see a recommendation about training and just say okay we need four more hours and if I might I agree 100% with what Representative Janet had said the the term does training about so who has the ultimate responsibility for setting your requirements for all foreign police officers in the state are on if they come up with a policy a specific policy give us some actual hard data expectations of what the cost might be the type of training you're going to receive and and I have to say that you know having been a retired police officer all the years I spent and most of them are on the road four hours is not enough so it's going to require additional training to do the job that our citizens are asking to do but the council can give that recommendation out of the PowerPoint and certainly assist us in what we need to do here so I agree with you 100% and the director I'm sure would rage at the figures I think would be most. Does that make sense to committee members? Mr. I'm talking with my local police force which is small sending their staff off for training to create a hardship for the forestry so I think we should have the courtesy of knowing that and of letting them know how many hours it's going to be up front before I we mandate this so this is an amendment to 464 who drafted that Mr. I'm transparent should you work with the director to make that change? for thoughts about suggestions concerns about these issues so how you will work on putting together some of the language for that proposal and John will work with Bryn to adapt the policy language anything else? alright I promise to a quick break so let's take a 10 minute break and come back to talk about the state ethics commission