 operations committee. We are gathering here this morning to hear some more testimony from members of the public regarding S-124 and actually relating to miscellaneous law enforcement. We have a number of witnesses to go through today and then I think we'll be able to spend some time with Betsy Ann on some of the bill language. And so first, I think I'd like to go to Will de Wight to share with us her thoughts on S-124. Thank you. Good morning. I appreciate the invitation to be here today. For the record, my name is Will de Wight and I am, among other things, the chair of the Mental Health Crisis Response Commission and chair that commission during our investigation of the killing of Phil Greenin by the Burlington Police Department. Also the former executive director of Vermont Psychiatric Survivors, I'm an attorney by education and training. I consider myself a psych survivor because I've been in the mental health system and been harmed by it. I write, I'm published author, I read at the intersection of psychiatric depression and racism. And I had actually been in extreme states. I was psychotic and had an encounter with a police officer, a law enforcement officer. I've also attended team two, at least I've attended one team two training. And I've also spoken at the Vermont Police Academy. And I tell you all that background because I bring all that experience to bear in my testimony here today. And finally, I have recently founded a project called Mad Freedom with a mission to end the discrimination and oppression against people based on mental status. My primary problem with this, with certain segments of S-124, is its exclusion of people with psychiatric histories from participating in the criminal justice council and from being involved and ensuring that our law enforcement is delivered in an appropriate way that responds to people who may be unable to respond to law enforcement orders. I just feel like it's really important to give you a little bit of background about psychiatric survivors because I feel that historically and currently and then Vermont, we are essentially being erased and not allowed to participate in the public discourse. And that erasure and censoring and silencing is literally killing us. And I'm not exaggerating and I'll give you some more examples a little later. But people with psychiatric histories have the highest rates of unemployment. We have the highest rates of disproportionate incarceration. We are most likely to be killed by police. A person with untreated mental illness is 16 times more likely to be killed by a police than others. And I am a person who has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness for which I receive no treatment. And so I consider myself within that 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement. So this is very personal to me. And we died 20 to 25 years prematurely. 68% of Americans do not want someone with a mental illness marrying into their families and 58% do not want us as coworkers. While most of us are able and willing to work, surveys of US employers say that 50% are reluctant to hire someone with a past psychiatric history. Approximately 70% are reluctant to hire someone currently taking antipsychotic medication. And 25% say they would fire someone who had not disclosed a mental illness. We are the butt of late night jokes on television. We are scapegoated for gun violence. And we are routinely demeaned in the media. The New York Times, America's newspaper of choice frequently carries headlines such as who's the real American psycho or is Mr. Trump nuts? During his 10-year president, Barack Obama referred to his adversaries as the crazies. His wife, Michelle Obama, who has a history of taking the high road, road in her memoir becoming describing people as wacko and crazy and cooks and Mr. and President Trump frequently refers to his distractors as psycho or crazy in the mainstream media reprint these epitets without a murmur of critique. This is the world that I live in and I find it completely demoralizing and degrading. And in fact, that is the biggest challenge I face, not a diagnosis of a severe mental illness but the treatment I'm subjected to based on that label. So despite that background in S-124, when it came time to naming people to be a part of the council, no one with a psychiatric history is listed in that among those groups of people. You list people like the commissioner of mental health who frankly does not speak for people with psychiatric histories. Many times I feel many of the things she does actually perpetuates the discrimination against us and perpetuates negative stereotypes and attitudes against us. I haven't always been a psychiatric survivor. I haven't always had a psychiatric history. In fact, for most of my life, I moved in a very different world and I had very different attitudes about it even though I was the guardian of my brother who had a psychiatric diagnosis. And I say that to say that you cannot actually speak on behalf of people with psychiatric histories until you yourself have walked that path. While I would have thought I was well-informed as the guardian of my brother, I found when I was myself subjected to the mental health system, I have learned so much more and my attitudes have changed tremendously on the basis of that. And I say that to say that people who may be well-intentioned but have actually no experience with a psychiatric history are really simply not qualified to speak on behalf of people who have endured the oppression and discrimination that comes with a psychiatric label. And so my first, what I would ask this committee to consider would be to make space on that council for someone with a psychiatric history. And I say that because I hear repeatedly in Vermont that police officers are receiving more and more calls that involve a mental illness. And police officers are now really kind of see of themselves as kind of the first responders to people in mental health crisis. And so the lives of psychiatric survivors are very much tied into law enforcement. And it's imperative that we have a say on that council. And I'll give you, I said earlier that I felt like the kind of silencing of us or erasure of us is literally killing us. And I'll give you an example of that. During our investigation of the killing of Phil Brennan the officers made his death first of all was completely preventable. And I feel like it was kind of big, it was the result of kind of an implicit bias against people with psychiatric histories and also a real failure of training and education. For example, the officers, I don't know if you know what happened to Phil Brennan but he was killed in his apartment in his bedroom by Burlington police officers. And one of the things the officers did was, standing in his apartment maybe within five to 10 feet of Phil Brennan, they discussed what they were going to do to try to drive him from the bathroom where he was hiding. For example, they said they were gonna slam him on the ground, they were gonna tase the shit out of him, they were gonna hit him. And little did these officers know that Mr. Brennan was, they knew Mr. Brennan had a history of psychosis. But apparently what they did not know was that when people are in a psychotic state or a manic state, they have extremely sensitive hearing. A whisper sounds like a shout. So it's very likely while they were talking outside of his room about what they were going to do to him that he was hearing every word. And Mr. Brennan already thought that the police were at his apartment to kill him. And so as he heard them talk more and more about what they were going to do for him, it just confirmed for him that they were going to kill him. So when they presented themselves at his bathroom door and said, as soon as I see him, I'll hit him while holding a taser, which looked like a revolver, they fired the taser and Mr. Brennan left the bathroom, not because he was being aggressive, because he thought he was acting in self-defense. So here again, the failure of these officers to understand the sensitive hearing of people who were in these psychotic or manic or extreme states led to them kind of telling Mr. Brennan what they were going to do to him, which caused him to leave that bathroom. They also didn't seem to understand the effect of command presence. Command presence is the number one tool by law enforcement officers, but command presence, meaning using a loud, strong voice, has the tendency to trigger people who are in extreme states. And I speak from personal experience. As I told you, I had a interaction with a law enforcement officer when I was in an extreme state and they didn't seem to know that. And then I also attended a team two training and I was really astounded because in many ways, it seemed like, and I don't really want to use this phrase, but unfortunately the English language fails me, it seemed like it was the blind leading the blind, because you had law enforcement and kind of these embedded mental health workers who really didn't seem to understand the effect of their behavior on people with mental illnesses. For example, during one scenario, the embedded mental health clinician asked a person who was acting as if she were in an extreme state, are you mentally ill? Now, people who have a history of psychiatric history, when people ask us that question, it triggers us because it is a question that tells us you are dismissing me. You are saying that the way I am acting is, it triggers us that you are discriminating against us, you don't see us and you are dismissing us. And this came from a trained mental health worker. Also in that training, I heard people use derogatory terms to describe people with mental illnesses and no one corrected them. I heard things like crazy, psycho, wacko, nuts and no one corrected them. I also heard a law enforcement officer who had apparently been sued for using a, and I don't remember my memory fails me, whether it was Pepper Spray or Taser on a child. And she was in the middle of litigation talking about this case. And she said that she had confronted this person. He didn't do what she said. I think she was trying to have him get out of a car. And she said eventually she used whatever intervention she used, which I think was either a Taser or Pepper Spray. Even though she thought something was amiss because he apparently looked older than he was, but he asked for his mother, he wanted his mommy. And so she said that that made her believe that something was amiss, but she was so frustrated at that point anyway, she just decided to use whatever intervention she used. And she recounted that story with no one critiquing that and saying, well, it's inappropriate to use those interventions out of frustration. And so I recount those experiences to tell you that it's attitudes like this, where we are not allowed to weigh in that are leading to our injuries and deaths on the part of law enforcement, which I hope underscores the importance of having our voice on this council. I mean, even in team two training, which everyone just says is a success, I think only because the voices of psychiatric survivors aren't there critiquing it. I mean, we need to be there doing these scenarios. We need to say whether these scenarios are actually even, you know, if they're really true, you know, I mean, we could play the role of the distressed individual. We could give the peace officer's feedback to improve these interactions. But as it is, it's just people with no knowledge talking to other people with no knowledge and declaring what they're doing a success without including the people who are most affected by it. So I will stop there. And that's really what I would say also about the provision in this bill where, which is section 10A, Law Enforcement Recommendations, which requires the council to consult with the Human Rights Commission, the ACLU and quote, other relevant organizations. Well, psychiatric survivors are so oppressed and discriminated against in Vermont that I don't think anyone would even consider us a quote, other relevant organization. And so I think that we need to be specifically identified in this legislation as people who need to be both consulted and involved in ensuring appropriate responses, what you call culturally sensitive responses to psychiatric survivors who come in contact with law enforcement. The other thing I wanted to say is, Vermont uses this model of kind of citizen commissions or citizen boards. And I think we think of it as a very democratic process. However, based on my recent experience on the Greening Commission, I found it very problematic. Even though I am chair of that commission, I believe that based on my status as a queer black woman with a psychiatric history, I was completely censored, disrespected and frankly abused. In one instance, I was in the middle of questioning a witness before the commission who was represented by an attorney and a fellow commissioner took it upon herself to tell that witness that she didn't have to answer my question because she didn't think my question was appropriate. And she called on her other fellow commissioners to join her in censoring me. While none of them did, they were silent and none of them chastised that commissioner for taking upon herself to silence me. And I could go on and on. There was one point where I wanted to bring in a certain witness, no one else did. They wanted to know why. And I said, you know, I tried to explain, I see things a little different based on my background. I'm black, I'm queer, I have a psychiatric history. We have different experiences with law enforcement. And that would mean I have a different viewpoint. And the response I got from a commissioner was, you don't have to be so confrontational by mentioning your race. Now, to me, my race isn't confrontational, it's part of who I am. But on this board, people just seem so uncomfortable with any, I mean, I didn't truly want to be colorblind, but unfortunately, you know, my race shapes my experiences. But I wasn't allowed to use my background on that commission to its fullest extent. It was a very demoralizing experience. And so I don't think it's enough to say that you put people of different backgrounds on these commissions without also building in some protections to interrupt the perpetuation of structural oppression. Because my voice was seriously silenced on that commission. I had to fight really, really hard to get that report out with my voice. Other people may not have the same fight in them and may just give up. And so I think you really need to include in this format that's used throughout Vermont, protections for that minority voice to prevent the tyranny of the majority and to prevent the silencing. Because when you want just a majority vote, that minority voice will just get silenced. It will get wiped out. And you just perpetuate the status quo over and over again. And so I really think, and I also think implicit bias training for people who are on these commissions is very important because people are just not aware of their biases at all. People have to have a greater comfort with discussions around race. And people in Vermont are under practice because there are so few races here. And so we need even more training to gain that comfort and not feel so confronted by the mere fact that I am a different race. I will stop there. I appreciate your listening. And I welcome any questions. Thank you so much, Wilda. How Colston has a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Ms. White, for your very powerful testimony. It really brings to mind for me the notion of not about us without us. And I really agree that a voice like yours should be on the council. So my question for you, what would you suggest for the most effective process to have someone like your status present on the council? I mean, there are a number of peer organizations. They called them peer organizations, like sexual and fiber organizations in Vermont. And a recent organization that I just founded called Mad Freedom is one of them. I think you're asking me how to put in the statute something that would select someone qualified to sit on the commission. Yeah, it's a really good question. I've thought about it. In the past, what has happened, like how I got on the Mental Health Crisis Response Commission is that we wrote into the law that the Vermont psychiatric survivors would appoint somebody to the commission. Vermont psychiatric survivors and all, you know, frankness has gone through a bit of a, you know, turmoil because their recent executive director was hospitalized and was in a coma for a long time and they just recently replaced him with someone else who I don't know. And I think these kind of interruptions set an organization back. But at the same time, I don't wanna, I'm reluctant to say, you know, it's a substitute Vermont psychiatric survivors with Mad Freedom, a new organization that I founded, but that is a possibility to say, to do that. But I have to say also the psychiatric survivor community is a pretty close community. And if you would say, you know, if you said selected by peer organizations, we could do that work without much or any dissension. So does that answer your question? It gives a framework. Thank you. Other committee members. All right, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and also for sharing some specific recommendations. It's always helpful when folks have specific things they think make the bill stronger. Rob LeClaire. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, using my iPad. It's always unlearning exercise. Thank you, Ms. White. I really do appreciate your testimony. I've heard you once or twice. And I have to say it's always very helpful because you're very honest about where you're coming from and it makes it easier for those of us that haven't walked that mountain of your shoes to understand it for sure. I'm just curious to know, you refer to the Grenin case a lot, which makes perfect sense. And there's a lot of discussion about law enforcement and different things like that. Do you feel that part of the issue is, is that we just don't have the resources that we need? Say, for instance, like in that Grenin situation, it's pretty clear that law enforcement probably wasn't the right agency to deal with that as long as they, as it played out. I think my friend from Winnowsky had made the comment here a while ago about re-envisioning policing. And is there, do you have an opinion and some suggestions as to how we could deal with situations like that differently initially? Yeah, thank you for the question. Because of the events that unfolded before the police arrived at Mr. Grenin's door, I do believe that the police were the only ones who could have responded in that situation, only because the Mr. Grenin's condition was allowed to deteriorate by his clinicians. And so they were actually waiting for him to deteriorate until he came in contact with police who would then arrest him and take him to the state hospital. I mean, one of the root causes of his death was a mental health system that really has no standard of care in dealing with people who are deteriorating or to use the clinical term, decompensating. His deterioration started a year before he came in contact. Three months before he came in contact with the law enforcement, he stopped taking his medication which his doctor didn't document or recognize. His family made repeated calls to his doctor, to no avail, his landlord made repeated calls to his doctor, to no avail. His neighbors made repeated calls to his doctor, to no avail. Street outreach went out to his apartment several times which actually I think exasperated the situation. They were not the appropriate people to go based on his particular situation. So the problem there was the healthcare he received, I think so often what happens in mental healthcare and this happened to me as well. People who do well, right? People they call this high functioning or term that I resent because I think all of us with mental illnesses have the potential to function highly if given the right supports but we get the least amount of care because we're not, I was psychotic for a year and went to work every day. I wasn't very effective but I went to work every day because my psychiatrist thought because I could go to work I wasn't psychotic. I told him repeatedly that I was psychotic and he just wouldn't believe me because of the stereotypes about who people who are psychotic are. So what happened to Phil Green in his case he was pretty high functioning. He was a very smart guy and because he could get himself to appointments because he wasn't living on the street or disheveled his psychosis was really pretty much ignored but psychosis no matter how high functioning you are can be very, very dangerous to yourself and maybe others but mostly to yourself because you were operating not on the consensus reality and you can do things that can really harm yourself but the mental health profession just won't recognize it if you are not classically psychotic or classically manic. So that's where his problem started. He was a considered a high functioning person with a mental illness who continued to function reasonably well while he was in a psychotic state without recognizing that psychosis is harmful and dangerous to oneself. You do things that put yourself in danger and his doctor did not want to involuntarily commit him. The plan was for him to decompensate until the police had to be called. So the police had to be called because the Howard Center did not allow its clinicians and to go there without a police escort and that's gonna happen. We can't, police have to be trained to deal with people who are unable to comply because of some impairment because these impairments sometimes spring up. For example, in my case, my psychosis was caused by medication. And so that can't be predicted. Some psychosis can be caused by a diabetic event. And so they have to be trained to deal with it because you're not gonna catch them all before they decompensate. That being said, the police are not the best people in general to respond to a mental health crisis. They just simply are not. And mental health conditions are not necessarily, I mean, they're better in some ways because they don't carry guns, but they could also use a lot more input from people who have been in those states. And that's why I advocate, in any mobile crisis unit, you have people with lived experience of being in crisis who can recognize what's happening with a person in crisis. Another thing that happened in the Phil grinning case is that the police were unable because of their training to recognize his clear signs that he was afraid. They interpreted it as aggression. I mean, he was holding two knives, but when they came to his door and opened it, he de-escalated the situation by closing the door. When they entered his apartment, he hid in the bathroom, but they couldn't read that he was actually afraid of them because of their training that people who have a mental illness are dangerous. I mean, I just looked at, I just pulled out this morning the Vermont state police policy on dealing with people with diminished capacity or mental illness. And it states explicitly and wrongly in the policy that people with a mental illness sometimes have a violent nature, which is completely false and is against all research. But if you are, they also say that anytime you encounter a person with mental illness, it has the potential to erupt into violence. Well, that's a true statement for anybody. Any interaction with the police has a potential for violence. It's not more true for a person with a mental illness, but that is how our police are trained. And that is what is actually codified in writing in Vermont state police policy. And so they're clearly not the right people, but they need to be trained to be better at it. In a mobile crisis unit that's with responsibility shared by people with lived experience and mental health workers, I think is the best practice in dealing with people in mental health crisis. You all set, Rob? Thanks. Committee members, any other questions for this witness before we move on? All right, I wanna come next to Randy H, who committee members will remember was with us during one of our public hearings. But when we circled back to him to give him a chance to finish his statement to us, somebody had just arrived and was interrupting his ability to focus on the public hearing. So, Randy, I wanna thank you for joining us this morning and welcome you to share your thoughts with the committee. Oh, thank you. Well, my plumber came that day and I had to actually handle that, but I apologize for not being able to finish and what I came to testify about the other day. But basically what I wanted to address was basically what are the cops doing in the community to make sure they didn't know the community that they're working. Basically, like I said, I represent my non-profit organization, Black Men's Alliance, and I am trying to get more community programs started in Burlington as far as, you know, the kids, they need a outlet. A lot of people need outlets in this community because to be honest, there's not a lot to do in Burlington and so kids are trying to look for that extra thing to do and they don't have that. And a lot of them turned to no crime or no savior behavior. And most of what I've been trying to do in the past 10 years is trying to get community programs together so we can have kids that have an outlet besides just going to hang out and doing stuff that they shouldn't be doing. But also that they need to invest the money that has been taken from the budget and invest in a lot of Black community programs that will help the community in other ways. Like I said, I'm pretty new at this and I was kind of forced into position but put into position because of my experiences with the community and my incident with the police that I had that was basically not a good situation to where I was harassed and falsely arrested. And basically, I just wanted to testify to find out what their police are doing to involve themselves more in the community. So basically, I don't know all the cops out in Burlington but I know a lot of them don't work and they don't live in the community, they work. And so in order to really work properly, you need to know the community and work in the community to find out what's going on. Like these kids, a lot of people need outlets. There's a lot of things, a lot of people do crimes because they don't have a lot going on they don't have these outlets to go to. That's one of my main things I wanted to address but basically, since this budget has been taken cut on the backs of the black community, I advise that they invest in the black community in Vermont. So I don't have a lot of money but I don't have everything. Thank you for being with us this morning and also thank you for your work within the community. It's always inspiring when people step up to fill what they see as a gap in their community and I'm sure that Burlington's a better place for it. Committee members, any questions for Randy? Great, well, please do stick with us, Randy. We've got a few more witnesses to get through today and we would love to have you in. Next, I would like to invite Kaia Morris who is here representing rights and democracy. What is your title, Kaia? Movement Politics Director at Rights and Democracy Vermont. Good morning, committee. So thank you very much for this chair. My name is Kaia Morris and I'm the Movement Politics Director for Rights and Democracy Vermont. I'm also a former state legislator and have been involved in advocacy and working within and without the law enforcement systems for quite a few years now. So I'm grateful for the opportunity to comment on many of the different moving parts that are addressing this today. I think it's really important to begin by stating that we recognize very fully how complicated this work is and we recognize how nuanced we want to move within this work. That being said, what is needing to be engendered in this moment is a deep sense of trust and a rebuilding of faith from the public with regards to law enforcement and public safety. That has been a trust that's in many ways for some communities been irrefutable and broken. And so we try to address this as we came through policy and sometimes we rise and sometimes we fall within this work. This bill, when I first read it, I was pretty stunned. There were quite a few things that really concerned me thinking both from the vantage as a member of the public and as someone who is trying to do this work to create and push for critical conversations on how we can have a different way of being in relationship to law enforcement and its engagement with the public. There on its blush and its first glance, it feels still very centered in the needs and the desires of the law enforcement community versus that that have been clearly expressed repeatedly. And in some cases and in some communities, even like Burlington daily around the needs for really deep reform, if not a reallocation, an adjustment and perhaps even a divestment into the role that public safety and law enforcement play within our communities, how they engage with everyday citizens, how they respond to needs or requests for public safety and even a redefinition of what public safety actually means because some of the things that we immediately come to mind when we might say public safety do not inherently feel safe for Vermonters at this moment in time. So if they are part of a comprehensive strategy that is supposed to engender that, they will continually fall short. As I'm going through the bill, I look through at some of the early sections and I realized that there are, we're adding some folks to the Criminal Justice Training Council which is good and important. It looks like there's about seven new positions that are not law enforcement tied. I do consider and you'll hear me say this throughout my testimony that the League of Cities and Towns is not a neutral party at all. They do litigation on behalf of the municipalities against the people when they bring cases against law enforcement. So they are not a neutral entity that is just a coming from public constituency. They have a very much vested interest in our absolutely part of that community and we should be pretty explicit about that and understanding their role. So I don't include them in there but when I'm seeing the seven, I think that's an important start to building this out. I will agree with Will de on their testimony with regards to including someone, perhaps there's always opportunities to be a little bit more explicit about what you're looking for and what you're seeking and I know sometimes that feels uncomfortable but this is too complicated for us to leave too much to chance. And so we wanna ensure that the right voices are at the table. So I would, as we're thinking about these potentials, three other individuals that might come from the governor's office that they somehow have a better relationship to the work that's needing to be done. Even if they are not coming from law enforcement, there are still really important key voices that are not here. So as I'm looking at that first section, if we move over towards section five, when I get down to subsection C, number two, we're here talking about the council on the structure of its programs and bringing in a CLEP testing. And I do have great respect and understanding for the need for wanting to be able to use alternative methods of assessment. But the concern that I raise around CLEP and I don't know if you're gonna fix this here. I'm not sure where you're gonna fix this but CLEP is based on lived experiences. It is based on practical experience on the job, experience for example, even potential external trainings that someone may have attended in other places. But what we're dealing with is a system that is inherently racist, ableist and it is a definitive form of a system of oppression. And so I have concerns that even if they're tactical components about particular use of firearms or use of force or whatever we might be clapping in this moment that those are still not going to, we can't get the assurances from the public standpoint that that has been done in a way that is not only rooted in best practices which are also due to criticism and critique but at a minimum we don't even have that baseline to ensure that the culture that these folks have learned these skills and these tactics from have not been mired in these absolutely systems of oppression that we're trying to overcome through this work. So I raise that as a concern just thinking about both the tactical and the philosophical components of how you learn and how you process and understand what that means as Waldo was even saying you're walking into a space with an understanding because your culture has told you your individual culture that you were working within has told you that people that have mental illnesses those that are dealing with mental health challenges and are in crises are dangerous individuals. That is a cultural thing, okay? So your best practices are mired by that cultural component. So that's something that I'm not sure how the training council's gonna be able to tease that out but it's just raised as a red flag for me there. Then when we move on to a little bit further in section six when we're talking about the council services contingent on agency compliance there's a section down here that still it always leaves me a little bit uneasy when I'm thinking about in that first paragraph we're saying on January 22nd on subject section A I'm sorry on January 22nd a law enforcement agency shall be prohibited from having its law enforcement applicants or officers trained by the police academy or from otherwise using the services of the council if the agency is not in compliance with the requirements for collecting roadside stop data and or the requirement to adopt follow or enforce any policy required under this chapter. What we know right now is the ability to hold entities accountable for whether or not they are adopting following or enforcing policies is haphazard if not just negligent. This is still not specific enough in that it is whoever is doing that assessment to determine whether or not they have adopted followed or enforced them correctly is also still very much tainted and will be painted with that distrust that well earned distrust. So the review process is one that still it feels like it's still in deep support and protection of law enforcement entities rather than bringing around transparency and accountability. So I appreciate that we're trying to create a space that says we have to compel you to do this work but those who get to determine whether or not that work was done, we don't have that there. We still don't have that confidence yet that they will be able to make that kind of assessment clearly when we don't have historical precedent of that being the case. So then if we move forward, so if you're following along, so this would be on page 13. I'm sorry, I'm trying to keep track of all the different subheadings, it's a little tough. So but at the top of page 13, so I think this would be where we are dealing with law enforcement agencies and their duty to report under at the top of that page we have their subsection I and saying the agency receives a credible complaint against the officer that alleges the officer committed a category B conduct. Again, we're talking about the law enforcement entity receiving a complaint against the potential officer of that unit and they get to determine whether or not it's a credible complaint. We have no historical precedence of showing that these law enforcement agencies have an ability to critically analyze whether or not a complaint is credible. If I file a complaint, it's credible. If you choose to not investigate it, that is your choice to do that malfeasance. But my complaint is not deemed as irrelevant, especially by the entity that's already enacting this and is more than likely engaged in why I had to file this complaint. I'm like that's giving a ton of power that's already held and in some ways it feels like it's strengthening the ability for these law enforcement agencies to determine and dismiss. Where this becomes really problematic for me as well as I think about what's happening in Bennington right now. So we've had individuals. Oh, thank you, my dear. Thank you. I appreciate that you brought me coffee. So what we have- What a good child. I know is helping his mama keep it going, right? So we have individuals who are going to the, there's a really haphazard online system that they're using to file complaints. What's happening with that is the agency then passes it on to the select board who then publishes all of the public information about that individual down to their license plate numbers, their telephone numbers. It's creating a sense of lack of safety. So we have, we're gonna have a gap that's gonna happen. There's a community example of a gap that's gonna happen that not only is increasing danger and is going to deeply discourage anyone from doing that. I don't know how they haven't gotten an injunction against using this tort, this particularly public lynching of folks who are coming with questions and concerns about how they function. But what's more concerning to me is that it's going to have a chilling effect on the ability to bring forth complaints. And so those, when you're not practiced at looking at complaints, then you're absolutely not going to have the critical analysis to be able to say this is or is not credible. So I'm still concerned about the fact that those are being brought in. And I recognize later on, I believe that you have a different sort of duplicative language that's trying to create a space for complaints to go to. But so I just wanted to raise that as a concern that that is a potential first point of entry for people bringing their concerns around law enforcement behavior in this moment or their actions. So then if we get to page 15, again, we're bringing up again. So this is the section that's talking about looking at whether or not there should be citizens oversight. And the top three we list are the council, the law enforcement advisory board, which still has a, that kind of gives chills down my spine when I look at who is on that and who is not on that. The department of public safety are consulting with the Vermont city of leagues and town and other interested stakeholders to determine. Again, they're the liability holders and they do legal representation on behalf of the law enforcement entities and municipalities in these cases. They are given greater precedence over members of the public. They should actually be in that bucket. If everybody else in the public isn't important, then neither are they. They are just as good as anybody else, but we're giving them the ability to determine the very people who are litigating these cases are the ones to determine the structure of a citizens oversight board. No, no, we're definitely opposed to that. Then if we go to page 16 under a subsection III, that's again, we have duplication. I think that's happening here and it's super broad. It says that there should be more flexibility in the residential and field training required of law enforcement applicants, including whether applicants should be able to satisfy some aspects of basic training through experiential learning. So again, I think this is hearkening back to the Clep piece. But again, this is an opportunity for us to get really, really specific. People are coming to you from the public. You were seeing direct data. You were hearing from experts and legal researchers who have looked at this work and have said, these are areas that need to be adjusted when we're talking about training of law enforcement. This is the place where you should be explicit to ensure that if that you're gonna use experiential learning and Clep, that it must, there are either things that are included or excluded to ensure for consistency. Does that make sense? So perhaps use of force is not something that if we're saying we're gonna get an advanced training and use of force that that doesn't happen in the field because we need to make sure that it's consistent with what's coming out of the training council. I hope that makes sense. So then if we go to models, the next line down that section three, again, as we're looking at the models of civilian oversight, whoo. The office of the attorney general shall consult with the council, the human rights commission, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and other interested parties to recommend one or more models of civilian oversight of law enforcement. This, again, they shouldn't be given greater precedence over other entities within the state, the Vermont cities of these and towns. They should be relegated to the same status of the public and in that sphere. There are opportunities for you to instead look at contracting with groups that are doing this research. Okay, you have a whole law school in the state of Vermont that is looking at alternative models of criminal justice reform. That's your space to utilize that expertise. I'm not seeing them here and I'm still seeing a very subjective space for what that model will look like. And I'm not sure how you're gonna get the information from other interested parties to make those recommendations. Again, I know you have very little time so you're trying to put some things out here but you actually have an opportunity to come with greater clarity around what your clear intents are with this work. There are a few more sections I have here that I wanted to just mention. So then on page 17 at the bottom when we get down to number seven, we're talking about military equipment. So again, it says after an opportunity for community involvement in feedback, the law enforcement advisory board shall recommend a statewide policy on law enforcement officers' use of military equipment. What community members are gonna have specific information around law enforcement's use of military equipment? Who's going to have that ability, even if it was utilized in their personal experience to recall that information and to bring that forth in a way that will be useful? When we're struggling on some levels to even hear people about the day-to-day things that are happening in their encounters with law enforcement that's asking for an onus that should not be placed on us. The bottom line is we need to demilitarize our police and rights and democracy stands for that work. It is important that we look at that because what this is doing is it's setting it up for failure. You're not gonna get community involvement or input. That's not gonna happen, not for this particular topic. So we can say we did something but then we didn't actually accomplish it. So again, we need to ban the transfer of military weapons to law enforcement entities here and abroad. And that's something that even human rights organizations like Oxfam International are also moving very closely to say why are we sending them to Yemen but then also saying don't send them to Yemen but sure, send them to small town USA. So finally, the last piece that I just had some either questions or just I wanted to sort of raise out of S-124, if you're looking at page 19, that final sentence that comes out of subsection B, number two, that very last sentence in there is speaking about in order to meet the requirements that the center is going to establish, training on a uniform list of definitions to be used in entering data into the law enforcement and agencies system and every law enforcement office shall use those definitions when entering. Again, you have very specific research, you have very specific data to tell you what's not being in there. Get explicit about what's missing. That's how we're gonna get this forward and move it in an exponential fashion. I also wanted to just make a quick comment with regards to the kind of the contrast between S-124 and the executive order 03-20 that came out not that long ago from the governor's public safety reform initiative. So I appreciate the intent again of the administration for trying to come up with some language to talk about this moment in time and what their commitment is for this work. It's very heavily centered on the 10-point strategy coming out of the Department of Public Safety and I believe that every community-based organization that's representing marginalized communities has spoken out in opposition to this. So we wanna be cautious about this. There's a number of pieces in here that are very vague as well that I think you're gonna have a better ability to tie in here. So I would not base all of your work off of the executive order and continue to refine and adjust this work here that you're doing in 124. And I don't know that you're gonna be able to get everything that's needed in here done before you have to break for this last bit of session to be quite honest. The last thing to just keep in mind is that the public is needing to build confidence that we're talking in multiple committees. So recognizing that you also have S119 that's over in the judiciary and I know you all have seen it but that the work that they're doing there, your definitions need to match. We need to make sure that one won't undo the good work of the other. They're trying to deal with use of force and you're trying to deal with police interactions and engagement and what those behaviors happen, what kind of behaviors happen on the spot. So they need to be well suited to go together but lean it more towards S119 is my ass. Lean it more towards that way, if you mind. So those are my thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to meet with the committee today and to share our kind of assessment of where things are going and to let you know that we're here and available to continue supporting your work so that we can do a criminal justice reform that will actually give equal application of the law and justice for all. Thank you, Kaya. I really appreciate the specificity of your observations. It's very helpful when someone has actually dug into the language on the page and giving us specific places where it can be improved. Hal Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you, Kaya, for sharing your wisdom with us. And I will apologize in advance that if I have to mute it's because of the F-35s that are just zooming ahead. But the question I have, and you mentioned this in your testimony, this is a complex issue and I agree. So what do you feel is the critical path or they're very important next step for us to shift the culture of policing so that it's healthy and it's engaging in all the positive ways that it possibly can with our community? What's that critical path for us to consider to begin making this shift of culture? It's difficult because I feel like you're trying to engage on that path right now, but the level of engagement you're gonna get from the public is really strained in this moment in time. It almost feels like there needs to be a truth and reconciliation kind of process. I agree totally. Because people are, you can't build a process of evolving community engagement and reformation that is based on the needs, the hopes, the dreams and the demands of the people most impacted until we're able to really fully recognize those harms. And I don't feel that we have that uniformity of a readiness to change across entities. Again, I think if you're diving in, this is your opportunity to dive in. Recognizing the weight and the gravity that the law enforcement advisory board has is not even a dynamic that I think the public is aware of. And we don't have a counterbalance to that. Okay, there is no counterbalancing entity that is equal in size and scope and scale housed within the same, the same very community that's the same piece here to balance it out. We don't have a balance. And that's really worrisome for me. And that feels like business as usual. So again, if we're gonna again talk about doing Citizens Oversight, having creating Citizens Oversight, there are communities that are actually putting things on pause because they're waiting to see what the legislature's gonna come up with. So instead of even diving in and asking their community for what they would like to see Citizens Oversight look like in their communities, they're saying, we're gonna wait for the legislature to tell us what to do. And that never works. That's not how you do it. That's not how you build community change. So if we're gonna place our hopes on an entity of that nature, there need to be multiple layers within that. So I think that another piece of that is to say that, yeah, there does need to be some sort of compelling interest on the state level perhaps to be a secondary review for cases that go through a Citizens Review Board. I mean, again, like right now, like I said in Bennington, your Citizens Review Board is your select board going on to a live public meeting, reading the person's complaint, telling all their personal information, telling their family's information, and then them making a quasi adjudicated decision on it. No, no, that's worst practices in all the worst ways. But if that's what they're gonna be stuck with because they don't have a Citizens Oversight Commission, then there needs to be some more else for that to go. And that needs to have the hearts and the souls of the people in there and not just those that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, to be quite honest. So that's really what I feel. There has to be a balance of power between the people and those that are holding the power right now. And I'm not seeing that across the board in the ways that we need to, but that we can because this moment's asking us to. I hope that helps. That helps a lot, thank you. Bob Hooper. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. It seems like both with what Ms. White said and a lot of the things that you've said that the construction, the participatory actions, the recommendations, the evaluations, this bill sets up what might be construed as a rather incestuous process for evaluating where we're trying to go. And in your opinion, is it worth going forward at all? As it is, no. As it is today, no. However, however, yeah, I'm recognizing how hard this is and I'm recognizing the pressures that you're all are under to try to establish and meet the requests that have been coming at you. So I get that, I get that. Again, like I said, I don't know that you're gonna be able to get it to where you want it to be between here and when you all have to recess. So that's my concern. It doesn't mean that the work shouldn't go forward. I just don't think you're gonna be able to get it to where you want it to be. Yeah, thank you for stepping up for that work because it's gonna be hard. It's, as you know, it is gonna be super, super hard and very labor intensive in order to get it right. So I think I would just, again, as we're talking about and within this bill or many places that it speaks about, it speaks about reports and trying to educate different entities. It might be the legislature. In some cases it might be the public, but there is not even a public understanding of even how this system works right now. So that's part of what's gonna be necessary in order to ensure I think that the public feels confident about what this is gonna say. Those are my thoughts. Committee, any other questions? John Gannon. Thank you. And Kaya, thank you very much for your testimony. And I second the chair's comment about how detailed it was. That is very helpful when you get a section by section analysis of the bill. And I would not expect any less of you given your service on the judiciary committee. Just given the short time we have left in this session, do you think there are certain sections of this bill that we should really focus on to get it across the finish line? That would be more helpful than other sections that may take more thought, more input from communities. I just, what are your thoughts on that? I'm gonna say the citizens oversight work because that's the one that's the most public facing and the most direct engagement with the public. Again, we're trying to find a way to rebuild trust. We're trying to find a way to repair relationships that have been really rough for centuries now. So that's the one that has the most direct engagement from the everyday person, not even those that are disappointed and not those that might be elected to whatever. That's the place that has the most engagement and the most opportunity for you to hear from the public in the design of such an entity. So if there was gonna be something I would say that right now the people are needing, that's it. If there's something that we're saying that law enforcement or public safety needs, those are different conversations. But right now the people are hurting and they're afraid and people aren't gonna call the police. They're just not, they're not, they're not gonna do it. They're not engaging with the police, they're afraid of the police, police are not seen as friendly entities, they are adversarial, even in places of peace, they are still seen as threatening. There's just, there's a deep, deep rift and a longstanding generational psychic wound that people are feeling acutely in this moment. And so if they're gonna have any faith in our government systems, and I mean, again, that restorative practice, that restorative process between law enforcement and the communities is gonna take some time, but we can at least give the public a place to feel like this work is being done. And I think that there have been some great proposals that have been brought forth in different spaces and venues, maybe not perhaps in front of this committee, but I think that there's a great opportunity to do more here. I would, again, strongly recommend working with Vermont Law School, and I would even consider talking, you know, you have a whole restorative center there. So they're looking at alternative ways of being. So this is your opportunity to do that. And I would recommend doing that. But just following up on that comment about Vermont Law School, is there a specific person? Yeah, Bobby Sands, all day. Bobby Sands all day. So Robert Sands, I'm sorry. Professor Robert Sands. Thank you. So Kaya, I'm gonna flip John's question around and say, you know, my question to you is, are there sections of this bill that you feel are so unready that you would recommend we delay action on them to allow for maybe a reframing or refocusing of sections of the bill. And I know I'm kind of putting you in the spot to go back and review the whole thing with that lens. But I've asked that question of other folks as well, you know, are there parts of this that we would be doing more damage if we moved forward with maybe a half finished or half considered proposal? You all know that I always want it all. So, I'm like, I want the whole thing. If you go and pass it, like do the thing. When I'm looking at, give me a moment. The, we would do more harm than good. I think. So my goal at this moment after we finished with you was to give everyone a five minute bio break. And so can I give us a five minute bio break? And if during that time you come up with something that you feel sort of fits that category of, hey, this may not be ready for prime time. You can jump in as soon as we get back. So, committee, I'll welcome you to mute yourself and turn off your camera. And we will be back at 9.50, six minute bio break. All right, thank you all for your hard work this morning. And quick break was necessary, I'm sure, for many of us to stand up and move around and maybe catch a little breakfast. So we, we seem to have a critical mass of committee members back. So we'll go ahead and resume. And Kaya, in the moment that you had for a bio break, did you have any thoughts on a section of the bill that you think is so unready for prime time that you would recommend sending it back to the drawing board? I will say that I don't. I think that my previous testimony that was getting asking for greater specificity is more of what I'm needing to see in this. I don't see anything that's necessarily leading directly in the wrong, you know, obviously don't just take my word for it. Specifically of major concern other than the things that have already kind of highlighted just I think a greater community involvement and engagement and inclusion in this, members of the public engagement in this and then also again, just, yeah, thinking about who's given the priorities as far as some of these advisory teams on different aspects of the policies. So yeah, I'm encouraged that you all are taking this forth and again, get as detailed as you can because this is your opportunity to do so. So I don't really have much more to add to that. I apologize. I hope, I hope that what I've said has been helpful. It has been, thank you so much. Thanks for the specifics. Next, I'd like us to go to Falco Shilling who is the Advocacy Director at ACLU and welcome, thank you for being with us this morning. Hi, and thank you all for having me. This is my first time I've had the pleasure of testifying to your committee virtually, I believe, though had the pleasure of actually seeing you all face to face when we got you back in the building. I also wanna say that I really appreciate this committee's commitment to the discussion of the role of policing in Vermont through your work through the public hearings through your very short break from legislative work that never really seemed to stop. And the commitment to keep this conversation going, bringing in voices of those who are most directly impacted and trying to move this conversation forward in a way that's really meaningful. I do have the benefit of going after Kaia. So she spoke to many of the specific pieces of the bill and we agree with her on those. Those are all recommendations that we support in second. So I'm gonna speak a little bit higher level about the bill but happy to answer specifics about any specific points in the bill itself. So when looking at this piece of legislation, I think we echo some of the concerns that other folks have raised that what this is in many ways doing is asking for the law enforcement community to come up with recommendations for how they should be regulating themselves. And in some ways this feels like if you're asking the fossil fuel industry to come up with a carbon reduction plan, you are going to be getting the recommendations that are most favorable to the regulated community. That's just what's gonna happen. And so there's a number of places where the ACLU is mentioned within this bill as being in consultation with the law enforcement agencies or law enforcement advisory board who are making these recommendations and we'd be happy to consult with these folks and offer our specifics in the areas of community policing, body cam policy, reporting of allegations of misconduct, all these things. But I think what this bill does in many ways is it sets up a process where you're going to be getting recommendations from these bodies and then you'll be dealing with counter recommendations from the community and advocates like us where it's pretty much setting up this work to happen again in January. So I see this in many ways as a commitment to come forward and have a further conversation. And I appreciate that. And it's one that I just want to make the point that when we look at how this bill is currently structured and where those recommendations are coming from, I don't think we should pretend that those are gonna be consensus recommendations and those would be a starting point for a larger conversation bringing in different viewpoints as well. We have some experience with this originally around the model body cam policy. We were in consultation in the development of that. And we're very detailed recommendations on how it should be changed. And none of those recommendations were incorporated into the policy. And I'd be happy to share our memo on that and our concerns we raised about the policy at that time. So I think as a- They do. Yeah, happy to do that. And happy to supplement anything from this in writing afterwards. But that is one of our concerns is that when these recommendations are coming out, they will be heavily favored towards the regulated community, which is in this case, law enforcement. So happy to engage in those. I believe this is section 10 where almost all of these studies are, or 10A studies are envisioned. And in many ways, this seems to track the work that is happening in the governor's executive order. And one thing just noting when looking at that executive order, many of those folks who are doing work and coming with recommendations are not actually tasked with reporting back to the legislature, because the governor is not gonna require report backs to the legislature. So if this bill is really stating a larger commitment to come back and do this work in January, I think it would make sense to look at the areas where, any areas where there's not already reporting happening that are contained in the executive order and make sure that those reports are also coming back to the legislature as well. Speaking to some of the specifics, one area that we do have a concern is on the body camera policy. When we look at what passed in 2019, that required law enforcement officers to be issued body cameras as soon as possible and get them out into the field. And then it also stated in intention that the legislature would develop a statewide policy for body cameras by October 1st, I believe. But this bill says that law enforcement will adopt the model body cam policy starting in January 1st, 2022. So when looking at this bill and the legislation that's been recently passed, that's an area where we have some major concerns. If the committee is not going to be spending the time now to really dig in on a substantive body cam policy, we believe that really needs to be a priority for the legislature in January. We don't wanna be deploying body cameras across the state with every law enforcement officer without having this discussion about what that model policy should be and how it should work. So that is one area of specific concern within the bill. And so I guess stepping back again, looking at this bill, I know during the public hearings, you all heard from a number of folks supporting the 10 point plan to reimagine policing that was a collaborative project to the ACLU and a number of other organizations. And so when we look at this bill, basically asks for some studies on about three different points within that plan. Many of those are not addressed. So things like the discussion of qualified immunity, the role of police officers in schools, limiting low level offenses that would require more interaction with law enforcement officers, which is I know something that has been a big discussion within your committee as well around S54 and primary seatbelt enforcement. So we appreciate that. Preventing the use of new and invasive surveillance technologies is another area that we'd like to see more information. I'm happy to just send in the plan with these points, but these are all areas that as we're looking at, how do we prioritize our work to reimagine policing that we'd like to be looking at some of these points as well. So the points where it does track is data collection. We need more around data collection and analysis, increased transparency and citizen oversight. And in terms of citizen oversight, that's another area we're very happy to engage. We can put forward some models that we believe in talking with colleagues around the country have been effective in other jurisdictions. One that I would note is the city of Chicago is a charter that folks could look to, but also happy to send out our list of what we believe are some of the best practices within civilian review boards. We're also happy to talk more about that now. So I think that's generally my testimony about the bill and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I don't see anybody diving in to raise their hand. So I would like to engage a little more around best practices in civilian review boards. So do you want me to go through what we believe are kind of the core tenants of a strong civilian review board? I think that would be a helpful perspective for the committee to understand. Yeah, I'm happy to do this and I will supplement my testimony in writing so you have something to look at. Didn't have time to get everything put together in a good format that was good enough for your committee this morning. So one, in terms of the board makeup, the makeup of the citizen review board, believe it should be made up of citizens without law enforcement conflict of interest and that primarily those seats would be nominated by civic organizations or folks within the community and also allowing for nominations from elected officials be it the mayor, be it the governor, whoever this review board sits. So a mix of nomination from civilian, from civic organizations as well as elected officials, they should have a broad scope to review complaints. So this must be able to review a scope of complaints across the spectrum and have the ability to look at misconduct and not have a too narrow purview in terms of their oversight. They should have independent investigatory authority which would mean that they would have the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents and though largely this board would be made up of citizens they would need to have support of investigatory capacity to actually investigate these claims and fully adjudicate them. They need to be able to make sure that the discipline that they enforce actually sticks so their recommendations should not be just recommendations they should be binding in terms of how that they, their recommendations are enforced. So it's not just a recommendation for this is the future action that should happen. They have the ability to make actual decisions. And along with that goes the need for due process protections for police officers. If you're giving a board that type of oversight police officers need to have the ability to contest any allegations, be represented and have their voice fully heard in the adjudication process because those two go hand in hand. If you're going to have that authority you need to have that equal due process. They also should have the ability to audit practices within the department. So not just be limited to review of complaints but be able to look at the practices within a department that might lead to some of these complaints happening and what are some of the underlying issues that could be causing them. And then one of the hardest ones is these type of organizations to be effective they need secure funding. And I know this is an issue the legislature deals with often where you're trying to set up oversight and community involvement but also not necessarily having the resources there to do it. So that is something that is also necessary is the funding for this board to be able to do their work and also be supported by professionals especially in the bit investigatory capacity and also those that can help them with the adjudication of these cases in front of them. And finally I would say public access and reporting. So the public needs to be able to easily access these oversight boards know where they are know how to bring complaints. And then they need to be able to report out about their work. So regular reports to the public about what they're doing and then to echo Kaya's comments I think it's also really important that there's protections for the public when they bring these complaints forward. We've also been hearing a lot of concerns about how this process has been working down in Bennington in particular where people who bring forward complaints are then they're put forward and they feel like they face backlash from the community. So finding a balance there I think would be necessary. So those are some of the key components. And once again, I'll submit this all in writing so it's easier to digest. But we look at a civilian oversight board those are some of the key components that we think should be present. Thanks, I appreciate that. John Gannon has a question. Thank you. Thank you Falco for testifying today. With respect to civilian oversight of local police departments but what level should that be at? I mean, because I think it's very difficult for citizens in a small community such as one of the ones I represent Wilmington which has its own police department to conduct civilian oversight just because you know most of the members of the police force there's relationships there. Do you have a thought on that? Well, I think one thing I think that will in some ways be a decision that needs to be figured out on the local level but looking maybe at the county level might be more effective in terms of being able to pool resources and have that oversight that is maybe a little more disconnected in larger municipalities I think it would be appropriate at the municipal level but in areas where it is maybe smaller groups of communities having something county level or something along those lines it's something we do often within the state where we try and set up oversight be it solid waste districts or other things throughout the state where we try and do our best to pool resources and look at those areas where it makes no sense. So maybe something at the county level but at the municipal level for larger municipalities. And I have another question which is I'm reading through your 10 point plan and there's just one I don't fully understand which is prohibit use of new and invasive surveillance technologies. Could you just explain that in a little more detail? Yep, happy to do that. So that would be requiring prohibiting the use of law enforcement to use things like facial surveillance technologies and especially that's a concern when we are using and implementing body cameras across the entire state as well as biometric information. So this is something we've been discussion with other committees in the building about the ability to use biometrics is increasing at a rapid rate. So they can now do things like track who you are by how you type on your keyboard or how you walk. Like what is your gate analysis? Things like that. So we would say that we need to prohibit the use of those new and invasive technologies before they're proven. And we have an understanding of how they would work within the court system until they don't need to abuse us. So those are the type of things that we'd be looking for is banning the use of things like facial recognition and biometric recognition. Thank you very much. Questions from other committee members. All right. Thank you Falco. I appreciate you being with us this morning. This has been a good, robust conversation. Thank you for also following up with some specific testimony in writing. Yeah. And I would also say that if the committee does decide to do a deeper dive on the body cam policy, especially within the next couple of weeks, that's an area where our staff attorney Leah Ernst has a lot of expertise. She worked on the model body cam policy and be happy to bring her and her expertise into the committee. If that's something the committee decides to do more on. Could you do me a favor and provide her contact information name and title to Andrea Hussie so that she can log that for us. As a force. Thank you. Okay. Committee last call. Last chance for questions for any of these witnesses before we switch gears a little bit. All right. Betsy Ann, I'm gonna put you on the spot a little bit because I'm gonna ask you to help us understand how the executive order that came out on Friday afternoon meshes with the work that we're doing here where it has maybe some duplication and where the bill contemplates reports coming back to us that perhaps DPS through the executive order is not reporting back to the legislature. Sure. Hello. For the record, Betsy Ann Rask, legislative council. I don't think I sent Andrea yet to the governor's executive order 03-20 but I can do that now if you want to follow along with that executive order. I'll send it over to Andrea now for posting. So I think as Ms. Morris had already described this executive order is it seems to tailor along with the Department of Public Safety's 10-point plan for law enforcement modernization. So as I understood the governor's executive order it was essentially starting to build information so that the administration can make recommendations that would help further the Department of Public Safety's 10-point law enforcement modernization plan that DPS worked on with a variety of law enforcement related groups as well as community representatives. So I've reviewed both the executive order and the Department of Public Safety's 10-point plan to see how it might match or duplicate what's in S-124 and big picture, I do think that the executive order, the DPS 10-point plan and S-124 are all hitting on many of the same issues especially in regard to planning for future changes, how to change aspects of law enforcement. I think most of, let's see, getting back into the order. There are whereas clauses at the beginning and then the resolve starts at the bottom of page two or page one pardon and it sets out some short-term priorities that the governor is asking different entities to look into and then the second subject is developing legislative proposals for 2021 to make to the general assembly. At the top of the executive order on page two, there is language about requiring the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety to participate with the community in coming up with the amending and furthering the 10-point strategy and also the 10-point strategy is essentially how to make changes in the structure of law enforcement to assist the public and public safety and to have better working relationship between law enforcement and the communities. Subsection B of the executive order is in regard to hiring and promotion practices. And this is also an issue that's discussed in S-124 in your section 10A which requires miscellaneous entities to report back to the GOV-OPS committees regarding a variety of topics and hiring and promotion is one of the first things that your section 10A of the bill would address essentially how to screen law enforcement applicants and choosing the most appropriate law enforcement applicants. I think in the governor's executive order, the first thing that it is doing is requiring DPS to work with people in the community to develop model processes to enhance the system for hiring officers, including how they're selected, doing background checks, investigations, polygraphs and psychological exams for the purpose of hiring and promotion. And it requires by the end of this year, the commissioner of DPS to consult with the commissioner of human resources and the executive director of racial equity to develop initiatives to reach out to a more diverse hiring pool. This appears to, it also requires or it purports to require the council, the criminal justice training council to consider model processes developed by the Department of Public Safety for hiring for the adoption of all agencies statewide. I'm just a reminder that council is an independent entity, but there are many gubernatorial appointees that serve on it. But I think the overall idea is for the council to consider recommendations regarding law enforcement hiring and to somehow embed those model policies for hiring into what the council does in training. So I don't think that those efforts are, those efforts are on the, there's two tracks. There's what the executive order requires that a commissioner of public safety to do, but it's also repeated in S-124 on page 15 in your section 10A, subsection one about law enforcement officers' qualifications. So I think that the result in this area is that there will be two different groups looking at the issue of hiring officers and how to screen law enforcement applicants in the case of the executive order. It's really a directive to the commissioner of public safety to be looking at this issue and making recommendations, whereas your bill would require the LEAB, I'm at the top of the page 15 of the annotated strike all, the LEAB to recommend universal standards for interviewing and hiring new officers. And for the council to consult with the Human Rights Commission, ACLU and other organizations in reviewing applicants' current written oral and psychological examinations for cultural sensitivities and overall appropriateness. So I think it's two different groups looking at this issue together. One is more for the purpose of making recommendations to the governor and furthering that way and your bill would have recommendations to you, the GOV-OPS committees. Now just note that overall, there are duplication in looking at these issues. So it'll, I think it'll be up to this committee to decide if you want these variety of people looking at these issues and reporting back both to you and the governor in order to make further recommendations or whether you would not want to pursue some of the recommendations in your bill. Subsection C of the executive order is in regard to data. When I first reviewed this, it seemed similar to your S-124, which requires the VCIC to come up with that uniform list of definitions that all agencies would use in entering crime data. But I think actually the executive order goes beyond that. And this appears to be more, in the executive order appears to be more of enabling the state and members of public citizens to be able to look at just data generally about roadside stops, when use of force is used, when there were responses to people who were experiencing a mental health issue. And so I think the executive order does go a little bit beyond S-124 in recommending how to collect all this data to help demonstrate the status of what law enforcement is contending with what they're doing out in the community. So in that regard, I think the executive order goes a bit beyond what is currently contemplated in S-124 and that issue of data and the public being able to access this data to see what law enforcement is doing in their jobs is also in DPS's 10-point plan. Back to the executive order in subsection D in regard to body cams. The governor appears to be making a statement here that the governor is hopeful that at some point in the future, all law enforcement agencies will be required to use body cameras in their work. And with that understanding, the executive order would require the commissioner of DPS to make recommendations in regard to how those body cameras are used and to develop a model policy that's considered by the Criminal Justice Training Council for all officers to use when they use their body cams. So there's different aspects of body cam provisions in the bill you've already passed, S-219 and then in S-124. In S-219, that bill, which was enacted in the law contain the requirement for all officers under the Department of Public Safety to use body cams. And there was language in that bill saying that the general assembly plans to come up with the principles of a body camera policy. Here in the executive order, the governor is directing the commissioner of public safety to propose a model body camera for the council for the council to develop a model body camera policy. Then conversely, in your S-124, there is language about any agency that uses a body cam must follow the LEAB's model body camera policy because the general assembly in 2016 gave the LEAB the authority to develop a model body camera policy. And then your S-124 would say beginning in 2022, any agency that uses a body cam has to follow the LEAB's model body camera policy. So we've discussed this before, that is one area where the general assembly, as seen, should determine what role you will play in requiring any specified elements of a body camera policy. Because the general assembly has the final say in enacting law as to who will hold that authority. So if you do want to come up with at least certain elements that any model body camera policy will need to contain, that is something that you can legislate. Otherwise, I think this committee will need to decide who should have the model body camera policy authority. Should it be the council or should it be the LEAB? And what, if any, elements will you require yourself? John Gannon has a question. Thank you. So is the language in the executive order around body cameras inconsistent with legislation we've already passed with respect to the LEAB model body warrant camera policy? It at least seems to conflict in part in that the general assembly in 2016 gave the LEAB the authority to come up with a model body camera policy. Whereas this language in the executive order is directing the commissioner of public safety to recommend to the council a statewide model policy on body cameras. So I do see that as at least somewhat of a conflict as to who should be holding the authority to come up with the model policy. So, okay, thank you. That's why I thought that there was an inconsistency there. Thank you. And just, I think that there will need to be some legislative action in this area because if you're going to require agencies to use a body camera policy and if the ultimate authority is given to the council to do so, I do think that the council chapter is gonna need to be amended to state that explicitly. So there's no confusion over the LEAB's current policy and what, if any, significance that has. And also another thing is just thinking about to what extent there needs to be legislation on this or any of these areas because the council does have rulemaking authority to an general authority to establish certain training requirements but there won't be a requirement for all agencies to, I don't foresee there being a requirement for all agencies to follow a model body camera policy unless the general assembly states that explicitly so that it does apply to all law enforcement agencies. So that definitely looks like an area that needs further legislative review and decision making. The governor's executive order goes on to address a use of force policy. I didn't look in a lot of detail there because that appears to be an issue that's being handled separately by the House Judiciary Committee but there is language in the executive order that requires the commissioner of DPS to consult with others to develop for the council's consideration a statewide model policy on the use of force for all officers and agencies. And that would be an area again for legislative action to make a requirement for all agencies to comply with the use of force policy. Back in the executive order in subsection F this is in regard to training. And it's essentially looking at updating the current training that is provided to officers at the council and it's making recommendations to make updates to the current council or to the current training that's provided by the council and the executive order requires the commissioner of public safety to report back to the governor on making those recommendations. Training is also an issue that's addressed in S124 and on page 15 in subdivision two of your section 10A the bill addresses law enforcement officer training. It requires the council to consult with others in reviewing the current training requirements and making recommendations on what should be changed in that training and whether it is appropriately reflecting the needs of the community. So I would again see it as just two concurrent reviews of training here in the governor's executive order. It's the commissioner of DPS making recommendations of the governor whereas in S124 it's the council making recommendations back to the general assembly on training. You do have the ability to require certain training of the council, you have already done that. I provided that document for you that lays out what is currently statutorily required for training and then further information about how the council has exercised its statutory authority to come up with its own training requirements and what that training entails. So after general assembly gets these recommendations back on training, you could determine what if any statutory amendments are necessary to ensure that training is changed if you think legislatively that there need to be changes made to that training. Subsection G of the governor's executive order talks about improper conduct allegations and how the public can access them and how to ensure that they're handled appropriately. And so this in the executive order is requiring the commissioner of DPS to consult with others to recommend to the governor a statewide model policy for investigating allegations of improper conduct. I'll note that via Act 56 the professional regulation of law enforcement officers act. There were elements that all law enforcement agencies are required to have in order to investigate allegations of unprofessional conduct at the agency when an agency does receive a complaint about the officer. They're more general on nature. And then there is the council's own process itself. Once it receives a complaint of alleged unprofessional conduct. And S124 also discusses how the public can make complaints about unprofessional conduct. I really think that's an area that this committee can hear more from and from the council at least to discuss on a statewide level how the council was handling its unprofessional conduct allegations. If you looked at that document that I put together about the council's authority over allegations of unprofessional conduct I provided links to the current register of the complaints that the council has received and how it has handled those complaints. I think at least do in part to the prohibition on the council taking action on a first offensive category B conduct. There have been no charges of law enforcement officer unprofessional conduct since the provisions of Act 56 took effect in 2018. I think part of that may change at least because you in S219 did eliminate that language first that said category B means a second offense of excessive use of force. That had a rippling effect about when the council learned about allegations of excessive use of force and also in practice what it meant because the council was prohibited from taking action on a first offensive category B that meant in effect that the council cannot take action on excessive use of force until the third known offense of it. You got rid of that language in S219 and you also amended the language that limited the council from taking action on a variety of first offenses of category B conduct. So I do think that that will have a substantive effect on the council's authority to charge and find that an officer committed unprofessional conduct but I do think this would be helpful for this committee to discuss with the council how it is handling the allegations of unprofessional conduct, particularly because there have not been any charges to date that I'm aware of at least according to the register at the last time I looked at it in August. But just to note your S124 would also address and require the AG's office to consult with others and addressing issues relating to how people can access and make complaints about officer unprofessional conduct and then accessing that information and what should be made public. Then the executive order goes into developing legislative proposals for 2021. As I understand the governor's executive order is directing that there be recommendations made to the general assembly in the future next year. And the first one is making a recommendation about universal reporting, a universal reporting portal for improper conduct allegations. We've discussed before that right now the main portals for making complaints of officer unprofessional conductor to the officer's own agency and to the council. And so this would the governor's executive order would require there to be a recommendation on a universal portal for reporting that. And S124 also requires a report back. There's also a recommendation for a directive to make recommendations regarding use of force, investigations and review. And as I read the executive order, the commissioner of DPS would recommend to the governor a statutory mandate that for reviewing when lethal force is used by law enforcement and that lethal use of force be reviewed by the state police's major crime unit. That would be an issue that the general assembly would need to statutorily enact. And that's what I read the executive order to be doing for the commissioner to make a recommendation to the governor on potential legislative amendments in that review of lethal use of force. And then also the final, the last thing in the executive order is for the commissioner of DPS to recommend to the governor one or more models of civilian oversight and then propose a statutory framework for oversight by the community and your S124 would likewise require that same thing for the AG's office to, I believe, yes, to consult with others to make recommendations to the general assembly of models of civilian oversight. So again, it's two different entities making these recommendations for a legislative consideration. I think it's just up to you to decide whether you only want one of them to do so via the executive order or whether you would prefer to have others do that also so they can compare any differing proposals. So that is an overview of the executive order. Thanks, Betsy Ann. Committee, do you have any questions for Betsy Ann on the alignment or differences between the executive order and what we're looking at here? John Gannon. Thank you. It's more of a comment. This policy in E, use of force policy also addresses invasive surveillance technology. And interestingly it says it showed the policy state that these technologies and techniques shall not be adopted by law enforcement agency without express authorization under state law. The governor, I don't know if this is what you were referencing, but the governor by executive order can only control the agencies under the office of governor. So that might have been just a general statement by the governor that that is the hoped for policy. It would take a statutory amendment to make any requirements regarding those technologies that would apply to all law enforcement agencies including those outside of the office of governor. Thanks, Betsy Ann. Bob Hooper. So just to be clear on the hierarchy if something is passed into law, governor does not have the option of modifying it even for the supervision of the agencies within administration that would exceed the parameters of the law. Governor cannot require agencies under the office of governor to do things in conflict with the law. General assembly holds the law making authority, the executive branches to execute that authority. But in the administration of the law, the governor is able to order agencies under the office of governor to do things in furtherance of the law. So as long as it doesn't conflict, the governor is authorized to direct his agencies to do something beyond what the law requires so long as it doesn't conflict with the law. It doesn't diminish. Or diminish, right? All right, last call for questions. Great, we are a few minutes past time so we should probably wrap up here. I just want to say out loud for the committee's expectations and also for anyone who might be following through the YouTube stream that we do have some space in our agenda on Thursday and Friday. We will be filling that space with folks who express an interest in testifying on the various aspects of the bill. And so just for expectation, I think we are going to try to focus on some of the perspectives of local law enforcement agencies on Thursday and keep it more wide open on Friday to hopefully speak with DPS and the Criminal Justice Training Council, among others. So now is the time if entities are interested in testifying, if they believe they are impacted by this or if they have a perspective they'd like to contribute to any section of the bill, now is the time. And you can find Andrea's contact information on the GovOps page and feel free to make a request to testify. I believe the Speaker's Office has granted us four committee meeting times next week as well. And I've asked that they be the same as they were for this week and last week just for consistency's sake. And so to the Hardworking and Talented Government Operations Committee we will continue working hard on this next week but we do need to finish hearing from different perspectives so that we can get to looking at final bill language. So questions from committee members? So I wanna thank everyone who was with us today. Thank you, Randy, for being with us. Feel free to submit anything else that you'd like to electronically through Andrea and she can certainly share that with us. And committee have a good day and we'll see you on the floor this afternoon. I will need to get her contact with me. Okay, so let me ask Andrea to reach out to you, Randy, and make sure that you have a way to contact us. Thank you. All right, have a good day.