 Good evening, let's start with our introductions because the camera's on. David, why don't you start, because you're way down at the other end for people. All right, David, chair with the Attorney General's office. I'm Ken Sheps, the commissioner of the department for children and families. Jen Perko from the criminal justice training council. Rebecca Tire in the department of general's office. A-Ton Ness, Red and Longo, chair of the panel. James Pepper, department of state streams and chairs. Monica Weeper, department of corrections. Gary Scott, state police. Brian Greerson, chief superior judge. Susana Davis, executive director, racial equity. Great, thank you, thank you all for being here. Announcements, really easy. Sheila's not able to make it. You all sort of heard that, working on she's, I know she's just overwhelmed. She's just got irons all over the place. And so she really wanted to come. I've been able to sit with her and just bring her up to date on what's going on, going on, get some feedback from her and things. But she won't be able to make it here. That's all I know. But she wants to stay. But she absolutely wants to stay. She's completely committed. She's just over committed. So I just don't want to put that out there. But that's the only thing I have for an announcement. Anything else? Are there any subcommittees that she mentioned that she wanted to work on? Yeah. That's all right. Maybe. I don't want to hurt her. Yes. She will be. She will be. Right, okay. Second announcement, just Brown is on her way. Oh, good, okay. Good. Right. You all have the minutes from our last meeting which David sent, a little after I sent out one of the billion things I seem to have sent this morning. Any, we need to look at those and approve and so on and so forth or amend or whatever. I think one correction. Okay. I'm in H2, under my name. That's the way it goes. I'm the first kind of paragraph. You know, it says hepper, consultant, I understand the meaning of things, it's accurate. I wasn't intending to comment on the accuracy, just that I went back and just kind of looked at my remarks and I was just staying and it took me a long time to understand what it meant by the term white supremacy and that if we're going to use it in the report there should be some context. If we can make some change or reflect that. Thank you. The one thing I had, and this is so professorial, is Captain Scott's first name is with two arms. I gave it to you guys, I was gonna say it's not me. You guys, I'm sorry, thank you. I appreciate it. That felt really petty, but anything else. So you circled that on a paper? I did. Anything else? Just a minor comment on, under my words, it says we'll not push away readers. I may have said that I, funders also refer to readers. Which page is that? Well, since somebody did pet me, it's been passed to me. Who did pet me? I don't know. Which page is it? If we can find that person. It's just under my name, just to end, funders, because I think that's where it says, first line, we should have phrased them a lot, push it away, we've got you. That's what slash funders. Anything else? Anyone want to make a motion? Anyone want a second? I might have a second, all in favor? All right. All post, abstentions, motion is carried. Minutes are approved as modified. Thank you. Now we move on to much more fun. I have the honor of introducing Suzana Davis, who is in fact our new Racial Equity Executive Director. I thought we should all meet and get to know each other. She should hear us do what we do, particularly given the state of affairs we're at of writing the report and I wanted to invite her and here she is. So I'll stop talking. Welcome. Thank you, thank you all for having me, for inviting me to your meeting. Very happy to be here and very grateful for the opportunity. I don't want to talk at you, but I do have a tendency to ramble. I am coming to you from New York City where I lived for the last 11 years. My last job was at the Health Department doing work at an intersection of health and housing. For that I'm the Director of the Black and Asian Caucus of the New York City Council. Before that I was in a deep despair after the bar exam. So, now that we've come out of that dark. I am here, happy to be your new Executive Director for Racial Equity. I'm operating at the Agency for Administration based in Montpellier at the Pavilion Building and I have a lot of directors that have been rushed upon me and I keep telling folks, no, no, I don't have a big job. You all have a big job and I'm just here to sort of help nudge. So, I'm looking forward to pushing along all of my work on to the people of the state of Vermont and one of the primary directors that I'll be doing is doing a talk to bottom review of the internal policies of the different state agencies to identify which to any are in general racial disparity and making recommendations for high protocols with the hope of reducing some of the high turnover of people of color in state service. And then I'm also going to be working on creating a public engagement framework, working with government and community partners so that we can have this conversation without people being so darn set about it. Creating and creating spaces where people do feel safe to have these conversations, to make mistakes, to learn the language and to learn how to approach the issue so that we can engage more people. And I'm gonna stop here, but any questions we have we're happy to answer. If not, I'm excited to hear from you. Would you remind us what the mandate is generally? And how negative community members and members of this commission are you also the panel? Oh yeah. And is there a set time to regularly meet? And really my questions are related to sort of understand and see where we have had roles and the overwhelming mandates. Yeah, absolutely, thank you for raising that sacrifice. I mentioned there is, in the legislation that created my position, there was also an advisory panel that was created with appointees from different areas of government. It's a five member panel with a staggered term so that the roster is rotating by now at once. Members include Karen Richards, former HRC EP, Judge Raples, Stephanie Cigno, Clarence Davis and Andrea Brett, are the current members of the Racial Equity Advisory Panel. They do regularly meet. The next meeting I believe is open to the public and is going to be on the 20th of this month. I can send along the location information right now if you're interested in joining. And that panel's directed, according to the legislation, is to serve in an advising capacity to the person in my role. Because it's a new role and new panel and new work, no one really knows what that means yet. So I say, given the existence of this panel and that informed one, it would really be wonderful if we could align objectives and see where we can work smarter, not harder, and work together, work together. We've had that conversation to some degree with Karen Richards who's come and helped with our work. And she had, I don't know that we've dropped the ball exactly, I think everyone's just been very busy and she had, because she had said there should be some back and forth between the two bodies and we just haven't gotten there quite yet. I think we are waiting for you to be hired. So now we need to move, that's right. We're so excited to help. Thank you so much. You know, I think too, in terms of fostering that exchange of information, as I know that we have expressed interest, maybe these public medias, if you have the agenda to share, and we can make sure that we share hours with you from your ideal way around your world, and have some time to go, if it's relevant, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it just seems a bit different. Yeah, and I mean I don't know how that handle is choosing to move to, I'm assuming it's operating by Robert's rules, similar to this one, and all of that, so whatever the processes are, I'll absolutely be sure to suggest it to them and hopefully we can have that real, I mean, I miss state a lot of idioms in English, so you're gonna have to figure it out a lot, that sort of cross-seeding between the families. Other questions, comments or anything like that? You look like you have one. No? No, it's just my face. Okay. Okay, nevermind. It's a question, you know. Just want to get everything right. Great, all right. Next then, I sent along proposals for inclusion in the panel's report, four pages roughly, three and a bit, from Rebecca Turner, and then a few paragraphs from Ken Shatts and Karen Bassine, and I thought we should discuss those first, and then bless it, and then we can start doing the subcommittee stuff, nevermind. So, do you want to talk about the issue? Yeah, we should. Which other one do you want to talk about? Shorter. Okay, sure. Go for it. Go for it. No, that's true, right? Yeah. So, as many of you recall from our last meeting, when we were going around and we had some conversation about human justice issues, not having been the only subject of a lot of conversation here, and it is certainly within our charges, frankly, why I'm a member of the panel, and I think it makes sense to both take on the need and we should, Jennifer actually was really helpful too in making that point. So, the idea was to put something in writing to, and I kept it pretty short, it was like there's extra copies. Yeah, I mean, there are copies in the center. But, you know, honestly, as many of you know, the Department of Children and Families is pretty challenged in terms of data, but I did want to start there to see what we had. And so, what I referenced was getting some data from the Children and Family Accounts for Prevention Programs. But some of you may be familiar with that. I think it comes from the Federal Journal of Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Each state has to have what's referred to as a state advisory group. In Vermont, it's called the Children's and Family Accounts for Prevention Programs. It's a group of people appointed by the governor who do a range of different activities, including granting out federal dollars. But one of the things that are required to do is measure compliance with the Children's Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. One of the provisions of the Act is looking at issues of racial disparity, particularly on disproportionate minority contact. So they do some analysis every year. And what they, and so what I described here is based on the most recent report where that council did identify that we do have two particular areas of statistically significant racial disparity, Chittin County, specifically in the areas of arrest and security detention. And the second area is with respect to, it's more anecdotal. And so that's, we've had some communication with some of the organizations that work with New Americans and they have described this concern about students of color being expelled from school, getting into trouble in any places like Woodside. It's not, it was a bit of an education for me element because when I certainly heard about the schools of prison pipeline, but I've understood that to be more about sometimes schools either get through their teachers or your school resource officers identifying activities, charging youth with crimes that end up resulting in criminal prosecution. That's my understanding that's not what's being described here. It's a little bit different, but still relevant in that it has more to do with expulsion from school. And then at least the concept as I initiated is, you know, people with honestly, perhaps too much time on their hands of getting into trouble and ending up in the criminal justice system. So those are the areas that I will put forward as things we should put in the report as a no-word of the event we should address. And I did include a little bit to just to share with you what we're currently doing. Because this has been identified. And so the Children's Family Council, as I mentioned, does have some grant making capacity. And so to address these issues, they have provided a grant to the Association of Africans Living in Vermont and to specifically provide an entering program, skill development programs, an after-school recreation program and on-site mental health practitioner. So that is already in place. But what I thought I would just put out there was an idea of where we could go in terms of addressing these issues. And that is frankly, personal understanding more about what's been described about the high school to correctional system pipeline. Because again, it's anecdotal. I don't want to pretend that I know more than I do. But I think it's worth looking at to see if in fact there is data to support that concern. And if so, then of course we want to deal with it. But then with respect to the issues of arrest and secure detention, I think it is worthwhile. And we have begun having some conversations with particularly in Chittinian County with the State Attorney's Office, Public Offender's Office and law enforcement to try to talk about how can we reduce disproportionate arrests and proposals for secure detention for youth of color. So we've definitely been engaged in those conversations. So I don't want to suggest we're starting from ground zero, but I do think it makes sense for this panel to recognize those issues and to support those continuing efforts. So I'll sort of stop there, open the questions. When you refer, or at least in here, to secure detention, you're talking about Woodside? We are talking about Woodside, yes. We definitely, there is no gap when we look at the population of Woodside where there is racial disparity. The proportion of youth of color, new Americans is clearly higher than their percentage in the population. And just to clarify, who makes the decision as to whether a child should be in a secure facility like this? So there's two ways you can get into what a youth can be placed at Woodside. The first is a judicial decision, and that is when there is an allegation of delinquency and there's a request by more enforcement and the State's Attorney to have that youth be confined. Judge makes the preliminary decision about whether or not the youth should be confined in Woodside, this is pre-adjudication, pre-disposition. Actually, in recent amendment to the law, DCF reserved the decision, because the youth is put in DCF custody, uniquely, in my custody, it's commissioner, but, and so what we did work out with various stakeholders, and what I'm saying here was that if DCF determined that the youth could be released from Woodside and placed safely in a community-based setting, I had the authority to do that without having to go back to the court. Because that was an issue that some of you may know about, that one of the things about court order was then people felt like you couldn't move the youth, even if everybody felt that another placement was appropriate, and so we addressed that issue to give. So the answer is the judge makes that preliminary decision, but I have the authority to move the youth outside of Woodside. What about the other part, though? Can the judge make a decision pre-disposition to put a child in a place like Woodside over DCF's recommendation? Doesn't the judge- So it has to be, thank you, in fact, it has to be a recommendation on Woodside. So what we did was try to build in a variety of safeguards, so the idea is that DCF, if DCF says right at the beginning, this youth can be safely go back home, be in a foster home or a residential program, the judge can't move to Woodside. It has to be based on our recommendation, and then we can, even then, we can change our mind. So DCF tracking at all of the numbers of children who it recommends, whether it's pre or post, based on race and gender, who's going into Woodside? So I'll have to check on that. I think that's, again, as I mentioned here earlier, our data system's pretty challenging, and so it might be, we'd have to do that by going back, as opposed to, you know, in real time. But I think it's a great question, and I think it is really worthwhile trying to do that. And these theories of questions sort of cluster around focusing on key discretionary points around Woodside, and who ends up in Woodside, which we know is a problem, in terms of racial disparities. And of course, folks are using federal judge decisions on a couple of days ago, dealing with constraints. But the question then, focusing on discretion and a DCF's role in making those critical decisions, I know I didn't have, and I apologize about the time and the advance, I focused on prosecution and general, to the extent that DCF's role is similar to that of criminal justice and prosecute. I just wanted to draw that up. I appreciate your recommendations, but I think there's so much more discretion that DCF has in terms of making these judgment calls that are for clients in the system, in terms of security. And let me just say, because I do think the racial disparity issue is really important, but I think it's actually been a successful effort generally to reduce the population in Woodside. So because it's substantially decreased one term to average data population right now. So last year, the average population was, I believe, 16. It ranges from seven to 20, at any given day. But in fact, so that was just the year 18. I don't think I have the data yet for just the year 19, but I expect it's gonna be lower than 16, because the population continues to go down in terms of pure numbers. But I think, again, the point about discretion is really appropriate, and I think it is worth looking at. So Ken, why is this recommendation directed at law enforcement and state's attorneys? It does include us, and I think that the next point is right. It's just my fault in terms of drafting. I think we were thinking about it more in the context of arrest over, because that is a fire, that we're not directly buying on that. We get involved in the decision about placement. So I think it is a good suggestion that we definitely should add DCF in terms of this process. And what are the, what's kind of the substance of, you said you've been meeting with Chippin County state's attorneys and talking to them about alternatives. What would it be? So the idea is to come up with some sort of first of all screening instrument, the other piece to have an objective approach to making these decisions, making it sort of in part address the issue about discretion. But it's also to make sure that we're talking together about and make sure people understand the range of alternatives and the thinking process and actually having, there've been some conversations about having some sort of screening process as a team to look at these cases to try to figure out together, frankly, what alternatives there are to a place that it works at. Is the state's attorney going to oppose that? No, I've been supportive and involved. And there's some kind of general, I mean, a public defender's office who's been involved, it was my understanding. Is there a way to get some of this data that you talk about and also insert the kind of anecdotal concerns that you've been hearing? So the anecdotal ones don't have much more than, frankly, the email, but the data we can provide back at data. One of the issues we see as well, and that's an honestly, it's meant to do so, is the GAOs. The GAOs who are assigned to cases. And again, anecdotal, and then plus a lot of data, where a family, I call it a family but also a jewellery emergency system and really it's focused on the child. But in most instances, the GAL for the child is the parent and the family member. Now, I understood that in Chittenden when the child or the family parents could not speak English. There was a default to not put the parent as a GAL to revert to one of the GAL volunteers. There was also concern for whatever other reason, whether it's a language barrier issue for other reasons, that non-family member GAL was being assigned to children of color, usually matching up on a nationality point. And so the concern, of course, is that when you have a GAL, it's so critical to providing insight, independent advice to the judge, right? GAL is a member of the judiciary. And we layer on implicit bias concerns, and the child is some of the color of the GALs, some of you can't really necessarily really use the racial and history exposure. But our concern, again, of data is can we track are there different results based on racial matchup? Similar issues in terms of custody, placements on insecure, sending the foster family. Are siblings of color being placed together in the same frequency as white siblings who are white? Are siblings of our children of color being placed with foster families of color, right? Is there some kind of disparity there? Again, it's looking at the data, looking, thinking about looking for data that we haven't necessarily thought to look for. So we're so focused on one side, which there's so much to collect in just that context, but it's actually bigger. And I know to some of you, it's the extent of bleeding in the chins and child welfare systems. I was just gonna say, the issue with us siblings is very, if you let me be quick, that's not a delinquency issue. That is a very legitimate question regarding the child welfare system. And so many of these children are in chins and families involved. Although that was a recommendation I suggested, which is why don't we have the child welfare system that parts this mandate? Not that I wanna increase it, but it seems to me that that's not new to the problems we're seeing in these other areas. They're different, but it's a small problem. And if no one is focused on that area, I think that's okay. So, this may be a matter of my own density, but it's one of the big things that you need here is our resources for more data collection in order to make the determinations of what you're now speaking. Got it, thank you. Anything else? So, we're gonna move. I'll move to the microphone. Okay. Sure. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. So, I did my, to pull back a little bit, I sent this after my initial email. My initial email provided some thoughts as to whether or not I have something to offer. There was a question from this group which was, are we, I was gonna give you feedback on that initial draft. It occurred to me that that draft did a wonderful job capturing what we had talked about for all of these months. But what we have not yet decided was, is that where we wanna just go and produce a report to give the legislature, okay, here's where we've been, what we've been doing, check in, which is fine, seems fine. Or, or maybe an and, are we trying to produce a report that addresses high discretionary points in our system where we'd like to suggest a legislature changes to it to reduce implicit racial bias. Which was, if you think about that way, I returned and there was reference to the last we named Chancellor, where I turned it out, they're really kind of a detailed, bulleted fashion, fall through various discretionary points from when someone gets into the system, believing in where there are calls being made by various extroven actors, that he's asked to be the implicit bias going in. If we're gonna focus on that, then this was sort of more of a, how should we approach this question? And then I felt, and then I threw around a lot of samples, reports. Yes, those were terrifying. They were terrifying. I managed to date it, sure. You, he's actor, I was looking at him doing, my intent was not to shut down and overwhelm. In fact, what it did, though, was that, again, there were so many versions of a report that we may be trying to shoot for. And we had, really, as we've talked about it, I know we had a terrible first version, and that, from my perspective, felt very much like I was shut out from being acquitted and what should be in that report, right? And so, it's really no presumptuous there. And then, also, that honor of York I shared, it was an interesting pullback of Virginia State's commission attempts at this and pointing out the various flaws, the biggest flaw being that it's so astronomically a huge project that it takes so many resources and it sits and it sits and it's under-inclusive and it primarily focuses on the problem, right? And perhaps just one part of it, a lot of judicial interest reports. I've been talking, again, internally, internally, saying, well, how much have we collected democracy in the field? That was another part of it, and specifically, how much have we in Vermont, and those in the system longer than in 2007, have experienced it? I understand, I mean, I'm a saxman, that there was, I think, judiciary and judiciary leading an initiative on racial justice issues and they've been wrong. But she thought somewhere, sort of in 2002, there was a report. There was, I bet. We did know, I can't find, just immediately, we can't find it. Okay, let me look, yeah. That, that, you know, then I started looking for some say, because I think that there are, we can spend a lifetime getting a handle of the situation, it's the same, too. And that's where we start on CIG, reports of the things that we saw going out, the detailed data we're getting from Chief DePoso on the bail, and then it's on the Chittenden Court. So really, snapshots of where and what is the problem. These reports from other states, which we did, I hope we get one of the liars, did do it in Washington with an impressive job chronicling, like, how we got here, the history, how we got here. So if there's any question about white supremacy or however, or whatever term, that's a different discussion, how we got to here. How we exist in this racial, racially charged racist society and yet we operate in the criminal justice system, judicial justice system, where you can't see the word race in any standard, legal standard. It's been stripped. So everything outside the system is racially charged and racist. You come in and all of us have to apply these race neutral standards that were prohibited from arguing that there's been subjective immigration. It's all been subjective, ideal, reasonableness, standard of some, race-less, gender-less, age-less, perfect, ideal, right? Which doesn't exist, right? And so there's no surprise that we come in and at the end we have results that we have just disparate treatment in some ways and how that's aggravated when it's more launchable than age and race. But so then I wanted to see, well, where are people now? Where are there so many exciting initiatives going around the country? Many of you have fallen here. From across this book, I promised to bring it, I promised David, I promised to bring it. He's familiar with this. Emily Badsallan is a reporter for the New York Times and she linked up, I think, with a sentencing project there and stood to share this. It's basically focusing on the prosecution. Have you seen less singles? Yeah, and the recognition really of all the different adult stakeholders, law enforcement, prosecution, defense, judiciary, public corrections, that the prosecution has such an enormous role to play in terms of power. Because there's so much power that's out by the prosecution. And what's fascinating is reading this, of course, and I look at all of these sort of reports around the country from various prosecution offices and the sentencing project that there are institutes on profits that are focused on improving the criminal justice system, decreasing racial disparity, disparities in the criminal justice system, and the solution section is always this timing, which actually helps to read an enormous amount of work relatively quickly. That said, these bullets are truly, like I heard pieces here and there, trainings here and there over the months, they just get lost. Like far away, various places, but I try to pull together. And some quick, some loads of attempt to get at what I'm trying to say in this group, which is to provide what I see from my experience as a defense of money at the appellate level, and so what I see from my job is all across the state, convictions, questions from attorneys come up and we either help at the pre-conviction stage, pre-charging sometimes, and then of course, through the appeal that it pulls onwards, right? So they're gonna be trained. And so these ideas come from that experience in terms of seeing where I think there are this potential, substantial opportunity to make a difference. I know that we've talked as a group training, a trauma training, the crew that's being varied for me on repeating diversity, going out of state, it's a problem. We all love the problem, I understand the reasons. We can't even know how to keep folks, okay? I think it was just a sort of my or. I recently said, we've spent a lot of time and money on training, and less, and what more recently I think depends upon our judiciary prosecutors on these issues, there isn't a change in the reality on the ground, right? So what can we do? What more can we do? The approach is here is, again, focusing on the prosecution because it's the prosecution that exercises the wheel's enormous discretion as to the footprint of the criminal justice system and who and how long it looks like being on the street. Critically, obviously, the court order or judges impose the sentences, defense attorneys and counsels and clients to accept the agreements, et cetera, et cetera, of course. But this is an attempt because my and all of our times are limited. Present some proposals that are from the beginning to the end. Again, trying to provide a tangible recommendations for what is under this systemic approach, not just initial stops, right? But why are then certainly people of color more likely to be searched, right? How do we deal with that? Well, one of these, and so I'm happy to go through these and transition to the individual recommendations maybe I'll do that one more time. That's a little too long. So, for this list, all right. But, Pepper, I point to you because this is taking on the prosecution primarily over a lot of this and incorporating a lot of those practices. Necessarily, I may involve the judiciary, the court, the bail, et cetera. But please don't, you know, you're boring if I keep talking but to chime in and add things. I know that on individual offices there are sort of cross-guitars already there, right? And look, I'm talking about Dori, cross-guitars, and Larry, Kessler, who's really just internalizing a certain idea of how to do this. There are some here in this state. Now, rather than letting that go through sort of the electoral process and allowing states of choice to exercise their discretion, that doesn't change that, right? The separation of powers is still maintaining. However, just like the legislature can set sentences, they can also establish certain standards. And so that's where we come to this. The other point is that these may seem completely crazy. Maybe to some of the internates in their brain who've been practicing this sort of a reasonable suspicious style forever and ever since 1965, with Terry. That we cannot even imagine a different reality. In reality, there was one. People of Terry were probably not. Problem-caused is a heightened standard before the cops could stop selling a warrant to burn their decaying and to frisk. If there was a reasonable suspicion of how problem-caused before. But the point is that these are actually ideas that are being tried and put forward in other jurisdictions. So, the first one to minimize the targeting decisions impacted by racial bias. The legislature certainly has the ability to lower sentences to change practices. And so, again, the first one is just decriminalize. Make it a law. The second law, I think, is self-explanatory. There's a lot of things built on the problems of like, without possibility of parole. The law doesn't have a death penalty. This is our equivalent and the decision is made upon the sentencing and it's never reviewed and it's done. And it can just put these people or sitting in the language shape and you know. Those two suggestions are sort of related to it. It's separated, there's a recommendation that the legislature established, you know, I think I called it a commission after sentencing and so it sort of seems like it's after the fact that it's related to this first goal. The first goal means, you know, trying to set it up before you even charge may make it a requirement that sort of low level of sentences can't be charged, right? And then no one would have it. Later on in the suggestion, which is related, is some kind of panel commission that looks back after a conviction and sentence. They're often referenced as second look laws where you set a certain amount of time and maybe other things before you look back and say, oh, should we be considering that decision? This is just the fact that it's served. And specifically in this racial justice panel review, maybe not even in threshold requirements, but if subsequently we learn that there was an officer involved with other reasons to suspect there was some tainting of the investigation of prosecutions involved in racial bias, we go actively in to investigate. Again, these are common for the innocence project now but not so common in terms of just sort of standardizing regular review of the sentence. You can do that in writing these sentences, you can do that for indefinite term probation, which indefinite is a nicer way of saying life probation, where people are ordered to be supervised forever and ever and the laws do allow the judge to change that and in reality a probationer is out there and there's no longer a term to seek that additional, you know, life probation. And so it goes to the end of the system when they trip up on one of these enormous conditions. So again, look back. Second thing forward, ensuring investigation of prosecutions that are not tainting by racial bias. Now I read that after a sentence, so how does that differ from the first one? But I didn't go into the details and I think there it's getting at really using certain standards from making spanners explicit where perhaps the law has slid or there's active litigation on this front. For instance, right now it is law since 1965, although it started to tarry the Ohio with risks and developed even more to allow temporary detention as started as an initial risk to temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion. The suggestion here is to have a legislature set it. I mean, so the U.S. Supreme Court has set up a minimum requirement based on the Fourth Amendment or the U.S. Constitution. There's no reason why a legislature can't just set eyes. So set it to problem cause, which is not hugely different. Second bullet reflects some thinking. This is about what an officer and then later a prosecutor are going to be charged to turn this five-dimensional suppress evidence for a 12-page solution seizure. The prosecutor has to argue to the judge objective specific, particularized, indicia to justify suspicion of the court, right? There's sort of a quantity around this one. There's legal suspicion of public cause. Here we see and Zulow was a case that we talked about earlier as a commission and that was in the civil context. And there the question is, in other cases, can the prosecutor use all the officers thought and saw and observed additional purposes? Wait, you know, in this name of an officer, travel patterns. Well, we know as defense attorneys and judges and prosecutors that it's a pretty low bar that basically the prosecutor can point to and this evidence so supports something, something to support the hunch, right? Whether it's nervousness, regardless, you know, of whether or not nervousness can be explained for the misuse of reason, whether or not proxies for racial bias, that doesn't come into place. It's seen again in that the neutral, race neutral standards. So those are often ways that we bypass those checks where racially tainted investigations and prosecutions should stop there. The suppression motions granted. The standards don't allow it to misapply, right? So why not have a little of the legislature? In fact, I heard the House judiciary earlier this session after Zulow came down, he briefed on the holdings of Zulow by their legislative council. And one of the questions from members was, well, can't we just legislate that certain factors can't be considered if this is such a problem? And I think one was it, sure, from legislative, right? So I put that, that goes into it more. I'm going to move faster. I just wanted to say if we're going to go through the right or the left, let me block them. The second, the next part is, I'm going to skip to the middle of this one. Second page, sentencing factors, again, the likes of it can amend what the appropriate sentencing factors are. Right now we have traditionally the list of factors all on equal basis. They can't change the priority. They can't move any faster. Guidelines that can be proposed, right? Again, those guidelines come from this book. Pretty, pretty, from this book. So it's not just, we're about to try and have it coming up with some black ideas, but vending it through various other organizations that she represents. So I'll just skip to the next page. The second, the last one, I just want to show you what I was interested in. This is sort of the legislation that has to dedicate this past session. Signed by the governor, we're going into effect July. So we follow up in Vermont. We have the data collection laws written to law enforcement staff, right? This one is focused on prosecution. This one is requiring all of the subparts of the cross-regional, the cross-regional offices to share and then report. I love this idea, again, because there should be experience in accountability. And we can also see what are all the problems and what you can talk about, knowing the problems that those didn't come inside of it and being able to aggressively read the lecture. It's great that we don't have an infinite number of resources. We need to be prioritizing. So I thought that was extraordinarily useful. As an East, I reached out to Vermont East, to see if they could reach out to the Connecticut East so you could understand that the Connecticut East Zoom chapter was very active in this, to find out how this came about. What were we, what did it look like before? How did they get there? How did it go so long? What's the question? It's amazing. And how are we dealing with the financial resources to accommodate that work that's required, which is... Perfect. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Comments? I wanted to ask you all how to proceed at this moment because what I was perceiving was that Ken and Rebecca gave us some stuff to put into the draft. And do you want to vote on that? I mean discuss that. Because that was my feeling was I'd say, we're going to put this in and we vote on it. And if we're putting it in, then it becomes something for the risk for the next step of the process, which is the subcommittees sort of making this exactly what people want. And winnowing it perhaps down a little bit. I don't mean, that sounds so horrible, Rebecca. You've done such a lot of work and I don't mean to say it that way. I don't think... Well, I wanted to my one voice by getting us a little bit of an interesting space. Right, because I had, I was in touch with both senators, white and ballot because I just know them and was asking about the report and everybody, the first thing they both looked at me and said was, gravity. And I was, okay. And that when I first got your first email, I was looking at those reports, one of which is 180 pages and the other one's 40 and I went, okay. Maybe they weren't smaller than that. And so I was, I'm mindful of that as well, that we have to somehow keep this grief. They don't want to read very much. They don't. 40 is way too much. Yeah, and so, but... You're asking me, this and can we should go into the report? Yes. I look at these, both these reports is, issues that various subcommittees, there may be things in here that they want to look at. Right. I don't know the value of putting this report. Right, I work in the report because, thank you. Quite frankly, there are a lot of things in here that is from the judiciary's perspective that we just don't take a position on a lot of these issues. But I think certainly there are things in here that various subcommittees could look at and say, well this subcommittee should focus on these areas and another subcommittee may be interested in that area and the same with the issues that can raise the question of what point of the process we're talking about. I think as we've divided up these subcommittees we're kind of looking at different points in the criminal justice process and that's how the subcommittees are probably going to be broken up. Thank you. That was the answer I was hoping for, something like that. So we know where to go now. And the subcommittees can work together and see if we can get a point of the census and bring it forward to the main group. Thank you. And see if we can get an agreement on something and then it's for that part. I believe, David, you were at that conversation that I had with, I was really in a few states, representing the Burdett. Last year, for the Burdett, yeah. And you basically said the same thing with balancing, you know what I said. And then also we sort of have a soft due date in November, did I remember that correctly? I don't remember that from that conversation, specifically, but there is generally, we should be getting something out in the mid volume in the member timeframe so that legislation can either be drafted to begin with or current bills can be amended, whatever process that you use. But yeah, certainly I think the member of the timeframe would want us to do something. Okay. It's been three months. Yeah. We can do it. Yeah. Well, and as I recall from our last meeting, we have multiple reports over the writing years that we're going through. Oh yeah, this is the first one. It's the first one, which means we don't have to make this one be everything, right? So maybe by the time that we have something, hopefully that can be soon, that can be within our question part. Well, that was part of this conversation too, was a certain tension, dialectic, whatever, between comprehensiveness and brevity. Because nobody wanted to be overwhelmed. But they really wanted to know, you know, broadly, systemically, where we need to move. Hey, Tal, just to be clear, we're not necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm sorry? We're not mutually exclusive, comprehensive and brevity. I would be. We have a poll and employees on every event of seven years. Certainly. I was simply putting forth what was related to me. Oh, I'm sorry. My mother says I have no sense of humor. I get all like, oh, no, you're right. And it was just, it was a weird conversation because it was like, please tell us everything, but not too much. And I was sort of going, okay. And wasn't quite sure how to take that back and what to do with that. But anyway, I think that Brian just put it out there in a really good way. Let's just put this up from the days together. Let's just do that. Does that seem like good? Thank you for, all right, we have on this piece of paper, I'm gonna put this up. Everybody wants to be on data. No, actually not everybody, but almost. I got responses on this. David and I got responses to that question about the subcommittee. I'm gonna write on the blackboard in a moment. From Brian, Gary, Jeff, Chief Don, Jennifer, David and Monica, you said something to me and I don't remember what it was, but it was verbal, which is why I don't have it. I think we're sending emails to David. Oh, yeah, send them, yeah, send them here or send them on. So, let's have it just, I'm gonna set up what people have decided for where they want to, what their focus would be. I can be flexible. I put data because Rick said I should be on data, but Rick's not sitting here. Yeah, I'm just wondering if that's true. Let's see what that's like. Sorry. Let's see what it's like. I think maybe we can put a group on David. I don't know, I don't know what Rick said to me now. He got one of my numbers stuck with me. I was, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Apologize to my handwriting. Corrections. There, this is... I think I should be on this one. Your branch now? Yeah. I guess, wait, that's from Chief Don. Oh, okay. So that's mixing up a little bit of stakeholders, government appers and stages in the, for the process and the subjects. I think people in the system. What are you doing? But this is what I got back. Yeah, yeah. Good. Yeah, go ahead. I think creature are monitoring attention to really go into a ring and then you have a separate... Yeah, I don't know. I mean, honestly, I don't even know what that means. I mean, that's true. What corrections, like... What? I mean, I know what it means, but in this context, like, what it looks. The data thing, something that maybe should have its own conversation about data versus having a separate community that just talks about data. Yeah. That's awesome. I mean, that's the suggestion I'm making. Same, same with children, I would say. Well, I was gonna, you mentioned, I'm not sure if this is what you're thinking about, but I apologize. But the issue is, you can look at children as an age group and a cat, but on the other hand, it's pretrial and detention, arguably, affects both children and adults. And I don't know what's the better way to do it, because I'm open to it being either way. If you could just focus on the issue of youth, separate from the adult population, but it is some of the same issues. But there is a different system, which is the reason I thought that it makes sense to separate out the population. Yeah. I'm flexible about that, whatever the group wants to do. We're turning to, you know, we've got had this report earlier, this seems to be divided based on prosecution. That's more like the sequential intercept model, right? The first stop all the way through, you know, corrections and then even into reentry and all the different points along that sequential intercept where people, where bias need come into play. Is it an oversimplification to say that there's a beginning of the process and then the end of the process? Well, that's what, and that's what we're talking about. And then, you know, if you were interested, follow up to the beginning of the end. Yeah? Yeah. We could just, we could have two right now or just say we didn't get that. I mean, if we're looking for a simple process now for a report that we want us to get going, then it can be broken as we move this. I like that one. So should we just do that? And then we capture a lot of it. Oh, well. That's exciting. You just want to, this is all the one. Shut up. But it's useful to have a, I'm looking at you because you guys are the experts. So we've got to be able to do all of them. Right. What people should be in, or what? What subjects, I think. Well, I think it's the reign of pre-trial, all involved, what's the interim decision? Police interaction. You can say pre-arrangment. Okay. Pre-arrangment, arraignment. Sorry, arraignment, maybe. I've oversimplified it. Maybe if you take before arraignment, that will involve arrests and charging decisions. And once those decisions are made or whatever options are available, then you get into arraignment, then you're really talking about detention and you're talking about issues. Okay, I see. So pre-arrangment, so maybe there's, arraignment through trial? Yeah, and then sentencing. And then sentencing and anything that would come out or sentencing. That's a very good idea. If you come in with some fashion, so what do you think's in there? So I need to put sentencing on the queue, right? No. Sentencing, I mean, yeah, who do you see on the screen? Maybe it's them, or anything, and they're talking about, maybe a little, I don't know. So they've got three different ones. And then there's just every three. And then the middle group. And then, so that becomes number two. And then the end, keep sentencing, that's gonna be number three. Now I'm just gonna put middle here. Go ahead. I'm just moving this. Pre-trial, the end is trial and sentencing. And re-entry, I would probably say. So it's a pre-trial. Sentencing corrections. Pre-trial. It's a trial and middle. Like, I don't know. A trial? Where's trial? A re-ment. And through trial, I think it's middle. Pre-trial, through trial. Pre-trial. The re-entry idea in the end, because that's a huge, giant part of the mess. Pre-trial. The juvenile buoy with the seaside. Let's just see how long we can consider the beginning. What, the parallels? Sure. There's nothing wrong with that. Yeah. It's similar. It's similar, I mean, I think that you do have the pre-re-trial, I think that... And I mean, every piece of that is still involved in the juvenile justice system. I will say I put a pitch for keeping the population with the potential for a subcommittee. I've been a pitch for keeping the juvenile subcommittee separate. Not because you can't put it into that. Honestly, I think kids will get lost because the numbers are so much smaller that the offenses are so frankly a good team that they're not nearly as serious at this point. So I'm gonna pitch for you though. The model is sort of similar to keeping the population and looking at it separately. Okay. So it's middle, including a re-ment. I'm sorry, tell me a little bit. First of all. Yeah, it's very little. It should be in pre-trial and trial. All right, got it, got it. What do you think is pre-trial? Pre-trial is like alternative justice, detention... Isn't that a lot of punishments? A lot of that happened before. I agree with Jessica. I think that's where those decisions come in as you have a lot of court to... Right, to me, at the beginning, anything that happens before someone is court involved. So like a lot of those pre-trial, like version, Tamarack decisions, ideally it should be happening before you're making something to go on in front of the detention. And you may not have been able to write that or they could be closed. They can, but it's charged. So it's the charging decision. We are right. What are you just saying? The recommendation of prosecution. That's it. I think it's, yeah. I think it's part of the charging decision and to me that should be the greater in that beginning. So look, there's like a transition. It starts with police involvement which leads to prosecution involvement. They make their decisions to the extent they can without anyone else involved. And then the next step too would be at arraignment. We're now prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys that should cover you from arraignment through either trial or plea. There's almost more issues involving plea agreements than there are the actual trials. And then when we get to the end, it would be sent in which now involves corrections and reentry obviously involves. Well, we're involved all along there on certain degrees because even when we're in pretrial or detention, we're involved in that. No, I'm not suggesting. Sensing, we manage a lot. So I can't be in all those groups, but. I like it. So children's the only stand and nothing else will be getting little edit. I'm wondering whether we should just, I'm thinking, I'm just spewing. We should start with just those three which are just wonderfully Judeo-Christian and with juvenile. And then when you meet, things are gonna fall where they need to fall. That's dark. Because we could sit here for another two hours and do this. And that's just not particularly productive because we have to figure out when you're all gonna meet. So I would suggest that. And then it's possible later on, even though November isn't as far away as in some ways I would like, that people shuffle. You know? Between the subcommittees. She is, it's true. You're quitting, you're just starting to do subcommittees. Do you call my boss? I know. Okay. I'm just gonna make a proposal for how we track the ideas. I can't be in all of the committees taking notes. So if we can, you'll quit. If we can have one person who's willing to be in a quarter doesn't have to be like related to us, but just like the big ideas that are coming out for each committee. And if that person can remain responsible for that throughout the process, because there may be some people who are on the beginning committee, but have ideas about the end committee or whatever it is we're gonna call them, they can then know which recorder to go to. So hey, by the way, I wasn't in the committee meeting, but I'd love to just like throw this in there for you guys to discuss or if you're meeting up with. So there's one person who stays responsible. Doesn't mean that they can't contribute to other things. No. Or stays responsible for things. I can be that for one and both. Oh, you're a big... That was really big. Yeah, and then forward them to me and I'll be the clearinghouse for all of it. So if November is an end goal to produce some, see where we can get to find some consensus. I think, yeah. Leaving us October for that. Yeah. That's what we're going to have by November. Mid-November, that won't be enough to get us a little down. Yeah, I think that's really possible. I think that'll be a good day. And then a final product in December will still give you time to put it into legislation. That should be great. They can just put a bill number on some... Right. They can just have an empty vessel pretty much. Yeah, they have all of their lines that aren't real. Right, you should treat them with respect. Yes. You should not ask them for a check. We... There are other mechanisms, like, attachments to something else you can put in. I just don't want to ask this. We don't care about that. Question is, when, and we said that leaves next month. No, two. September, October. Right. So... We should do it. That's four hours. That's... Well, or... Well, that's one... Right. That's one way of approaching it. The other is... I mean, that is people decide what they want to do right now, go into little corners of the room and figure out what you're going to meet. That's another option. I mean, there are two proposals here. One is that we use our next two meetings. Remembering that next month, Stephanie Cicvino is coming to talk to us about legislative... things around data that she feels should be presented to the legislature. She asked to speak with us. So she'll be coming next month. That's the only thing we have, though, on the channel. So I can just... We'll just talk to her and she'll come in and tell us. That's nice of you. And we can sit down and... It's not the whole meeting. Pardon? It's not the whole meeting that she's going to... What she won't know once they have the whole meeting by any stretch of imagination, I don't think. So I... Could we make the committees this meeting meet next meeting after Stephanie's done and then decide at that point if we need to meet outside of meetings? Lovely. I'm in point. I love that. I'm in point. I'm always into that. So... I'm not that I love more meetings, but that's a whole month now. The work gets done, and that's... I think we should meet in subcommittees now, start talking about what the substance is. Okay. With reference to the things you've already written. I don't want to... Like, let's use that as a baseline. I think it's a good baseline. We don't want to start retreating the wheel. So let's... You know, we have 35 minutes or so to start that. The subcommittees have a better sense of what the work is that they are going to tackle and what needs to be altered or changed or whatever from what you've produced. Okay. And then those subcommittees can make decisions on phone call meetings or whatever they feel is necessary or not between now and the next. I don't want to... I mean, I think it's a good idea that we are... I don't have any feelings. It does. It does slay her. We do lose a lot of time, which Rebecca's kind of... She's here sort of playing out. We need to make the most of it. So do we have four subcommittees that we have? Do you put all of us at something and then make the next one? Yeah. So, now... I guess we don't need this. Chief Donald Launter. It's not for mill because Brian may be talking to himself. I don't think she's on it. Right, so... But let's just... Yeah. I'm looking back. Because I don't like to rotate on all four, actually. No, I... But I think we should start with this... All right. Why? And then... I don't think it's fine. I think it means you're a reporter who's all responsible for one who made it. It doesn't mean that you're a reporter. I can also say thanks to other reporters, but that'll just keep some system in place for gathering all the great ideas that make it. I need to do the problem. Where are you? That means we're a reporter. So, let me know... I'm looking at this in the back for a second. Stepping back, are we spreading ourselves too thin? That is, would it... And I'm sort of including you in the general section. Should we prioritize? I mean, looking at these committees and frankly, how few people there are on each one, would we be better off just picking two and prioritizing? Because I'm just... I don't know what you're trying to make earlier. I'm sorry? I was trying to... I mean, I'm just... I don't know. There's value to covering the whole territory. I get that. But I'm just thinking, if we really want to do something by November, would it make more sense? Well, I formed those same lines that we mentioned earlier. I mean, this committee is ending it. We're continuing. So maybe we're focusing on the beginning, the pre-trial, and focusing on that. You know that the beginning will probably get the chance of legislation that will only be produced. So we're not spreading out even our proposals. We're focusing on the beginning of the process and then making our argument. I like that idea too. It's just being as a whole what you're saying about your subcommittee. I'm asking. Eliminating after agreement and focusing on what happens at your level. And then the first step where the court is involved is arraignment and bail. And then we stop the process there for now. That is a lot. But it touches on all the decisions that are made, including detention. And kind of a little factor in the juvenile... Yeah, and in that context, I appreciate that. The process at the beginning of the process. Take a picture. And it actually captures a lot. It also makes sense as an initial report to the legislature. We're going to begin at the beginning, which there's a huge amount of. So, shall I write that up when I was written before and erased? I can't. Or should we do law enforcement interaction, charging decision by prosecutor, alternative justice? More perspectives, more input. Yeah, I like that. We're going to end up having to vote for the court anyway. We're all arguing over each other at the beginning. We'll save a lot of time at the end. What am I writing in? Everything is going to get it. To... Who are you going to write in? Okay. We're writing in being like pre-trial, charging. Yes. Deal and compass. Pre-trial. Trauma, pause, determination. We're writing in charging, whether or not the trial is over. And detention. Oh, I mean, everyone's saying things. It's like asking you, Tom, to make that into the beginning. Like, so what everything, everything that should be, everything that should be in the beginning. What am I doing? I want to say a little bit, because Rebecca is taking part of it. So it seems like Rebecca just saw this other email, maybe jumping up on it. I think Rebecca did a good job. Can I help you? You certainly can. No, I... Did you take a picture of this? I did. Or we can shoot it up. We can shot it up. And then... Yes. And we're just going to figure out what we need to address. We'll leave that out there, because we're going to have a parallel. There's tons of jobs. All right, so... Okay. What does that include the first two people? I mean, stop, charges, nozzles. That's not necessarily to get absolutely every moment down, but gather general art. What else? Is there any other way to get the call? Customary detention, and... Yeah, like who's... When judges and gets the call. Right. Because he's going to get on board with the... No, no, no. At a late night call, and then the state's turning, the next day decides he's not going to charge the person. Right. So I think... We'll put it up. And then we've got the two people, my son here, but... So what are the parallels? The same state is seeing issues with regard to police interaction, right? Yes. I think all those things you've listed apply to generals. Yeah. At least my take on that is really no difference. I've got the role of a social worker, DCF, in terms of the police get it all but then the police is full of fur. So that's only when there's the custody detention there, can we? All right. So there is a new player in there that's not necessarily done on time. But it's not a separate step. That's how I look at it. All right. It's... No, but maybe that's where the school... I don't know if it's your school page. So yeah, I know I... Yeah. I had the same thought as you. I was looking back at Rebecca's email that she sent the other day that sort of summarized previous long-relationship written. Is there anything else if you look at that email? Is there anything else that you listed that went into the beginning? I'm going to flow the possibly unpopular idea but that's enough. I mean, bragging, right? Yeah. So... And not wanting to have more of each year. So... Well, someone do you have a picture of that? Yes. Susanna has a thought. Can I interject a quick thought in here? There's, I guess, one tendril that goes throughout the entire process, not just beginning but also our middle and end and everything. And I don't know how much we can really look into this as a group but it's worth thinking about is the public engagement that we have around these issues. For example, when a person is arrested and it ends up in the media, are we using class photos or milk shots? Are we discussing suspects as belligerent or as emotionally disturbed? And a lot of times those things tend to cut across race lines. So maybe the way that we engage the public and the media around these issues in the beginning stages which often impacts the public and potential jurors opinions at the later stages. I know that's an entirely different and huge follow-up. But... It certainly captures the screening process and then looking like, you know, with tubes. Okay. And I think we're broader than that. I mean, I'm looking for an answer just kind of for a moment. And also just so we don't forget. Sorry. The other thread that I think we should be asking ourselves at each stage beginning, middle, and like with each topic is what data do we need? What data are we going to recommend we should be collecting? Should we write that down? Sure. So... I can't take this. So do what? So I like the public statement. I mean, let me just say, I do appreciate... I mean, I think it's relevant to the pre-court involvement because sometimes DCFs or community-state police, we do have a practice of sometimes issuing public statements and I think it's a good question to look at. The press release of this. And I like Rebecca's notion. Rebecca's the complaint because why is this person complaining or contacting law enforcement about what this person is doing is it because they're bashing down their mailbox with a baseball hat or because they're walking down the street and they're suspicious? So... Now... How is this a subcommittee? We possibly threw out the idea... We threw out the subcommittee so we're now meeting as a whole group about all of this? Okay. Just wanted to know where we were going. I still think there's a way and there's a model that brings down all of these into intercept points that we could put them... a few of them together and at least talk about them. Okay. I'm trying to keep the group here to figure out what is going to work for everybody to get this written. Shall we don't just... We had one other thing we wanted to try to focus on. I think that was the shot in the arena. I think there's a city detention bail kind of with a dozen or so cash on that point. Well, I think that was more... that custody detention bail was more the late night call. And as we look at this, maybe we start with this. See how prior we get it. We get through it and go to the next step. I think it would probably be too much. I feel like the arena is on the cusp of beginning and middle. I believe that beginning is everything literally pre-walking and pre-going in front of the judge. Although, if you are held in custody after you've been arrested, you're going to go in front of the judge next day. But I've just been thinking about beginning with everything before you actually go into a court. No, I think you're right. There's a lot to choose from. Dennis, why everybody... Because you guys are calling. Could somebody caps like what we're doing? Because I'm like really confused right now. What this is, is every discretion point. Right, so I think the idea would be to look at each discretion point and look at how inclusive IAS might creep in and how we contribute around it or try and just deal with it outright. Are there recommendations about what things that we think could change around that interesting point? Which one of these do the separate headings in some way dictate subcommittees or are we done with subcommittees all together? We've collected, tried to come up with what we've heard before. I think everyone on this committee has a role in more or less in what's up there. So it would be a starting point. Great. Then we need to decide what the next step is between now and the next meeting and for the next meeting. I present, I came up with some bullets. I would love to hear what others have to say about the recommendations on these points. Start compiling and then discussing and then adding. I think everyone focuses on this area. Okay. Some suggestions. So the homework would be to go off and as individuals talk about each one of those headings from your vantage point. See where you fit in with the decision. Right. I'll send you an e-mail of this. I'll put into a email. I'm sorry. I'll send you an e-mail of this also. So I know we're taking pictures great, but for folks who don't have a picture, you'll get this. Okay. There's a terrible bullet point section. They do? Oh, sorry. I was looking back at your draft. Which is really, I'm hoping not my voice, but you is your compilation. And I think one thing I'm thinking just as we go forward, some of what you wrote I think it is good as like an overview and then I think we can fit this in. These are some of the principles I'm talking about and then we focus then and this comes underneath that and these are some of the specific thoughts that you're up with and are informed by a lot of the discussions we had around discretion and data collection and all the other stuff that I'm talking about. Okay. If that makes sense, I thought it was a way to envision how to construct this little floor. Well, because it gives them the comprehensiveness that they were looking for around. What have you guys been doing for the last time? Right. And obviously all of this is what the legislature is talking about for the last two years. We'll continue to talk about it. So we're going to go off and everybody is going to go from well, David is going to send this out to everybody and I guess we're going to put what another round of bullet points together that intersect or interface with the draft as it exists at the moment. Well, I think we'll focus in on this and how people do suggestions specifically with respect to this. Okay. And I think we can hold the overall draft in advance until we have something to decide on this and then figure out how to integrate it. I think some of what you've written will probably be dropped into here and some of what you've written will remain separate. But we can get a little out of that. Does that make sense to people? I just wanted to get out of it. Boom. Yes, I'll wait for you to send this out. I plan to talk up a lot of these bullets and stuff that you can share and then share with everybody. I'm not a computer person but I've heard of these things called Google Docs. Is it too soon? Would it be crazy to start some sort of Google Doc that people could add to? She asked me to put the draft as it exists now and she asked me that last week and I'm now figuring out how to do that. Exactly. I mean, I can do it. I know that you don't want to figure that out. Well, I mean, I can figure it out. The state highly grounds for Google Docs is all about. The state has to the state highly grounds on it and so like, you know, I couldn't do it. I didn't do it. I don't work for the state. I'll just do it. I think most of the agencies probably use Microsoft or Outlook as its base and I think Outlook the online platform of it might have something similar to Outlook Docs that may complicate your work emails. Well, there's teams that could be set up for it. There's loads more complicated. There's SharePoint which is also important. Yeah, I couldn't even successfully give us any training on it. That's awesome. Okay. So the idea of being some sort of shared document that when we're ready that maybe people could add to. I will spend my time learning about that. By the way, you're going to come up with all of these versions and track changes and then I must emerge them. Yeah. I mean, I also think at least initially what we can do is everybody comes up with points people want to preview what the other people put in we can just have a big messy document where it's just cut and paste everybody's stuff is in there so you can have a sense of where you're going to fall on certain issues, where we can come to consensus on things. I wouldn't worry so much about the editable Google Doc right now. Later. Just so long as we get a preview of what we're thinking. So, send these to me. Jordan. I'll compile something for next meeting. I can send them out to everybody so people have a reference and people can send their stuff in to me and I can work on compiling a big document. Hopefully we'll have that out so that's what I was going to say but if we're going to do that we really have to have those deadlines. I'm sorry? I said we need to do that. I need the food. Yes, I agreed. I was just going, we're just going. We need a real deadline for everybody to have their comments on this before the next meeting. The next meeting is the 10th of September. So, we found that people have their points to David no later than the 3rd. Does that give us enough time in the week between the 3rd and the 10th to consider each other's work? Yeah, so that's Labor Day weekend. I'm personally going to set my deadline to August. Okay, so that's what I'm putting forth. The deadline is the 3rd for those of us who aren't really doing anything completely that we just don't do. Right, if you got it. It's sort of a nice brainstorming popcorn set, right? Great. So are we sharing them with everyone or are we just sending them to David? And David will compile them and David will get them out. And if David needs help, David knows Zayton's efforts. So, yes. So David, will you compile and send it after the the head of our meeting on the 10th? Yes. Yeah. So, yeah, you have me on the 3rd, I'll just do it in the afternoon. I've just blocked off a couple of hours back there. So we just want to ask for clarification when you say points. What are we asking us to do? So it's a recommendation, which I think of recommendations. I almost see this as two and I guess I want to two aspects of points, if you will. First of all, what guidance do we want or need? If we go already feel like there's enough. And then the second would be to put forward some recommendation to address issues to put on the table in these categories. Yes. Thank you. Are we all clear on that then? Just to follow the statute, it should be recommendations to address systemic racial disparities to put a five on. Is there something on data separately on this statute? I don't remember. It is like whether to extend law enforcement grace data collection practice. So we can finish. Go on with that. Are we good? Everybody's clear what the homework is between now and the 3rd of September? I'm assuming that's going to talk to us about the same place you're going to be focused on? Pretty much. She's going to talk a lot about data. She's going to talk a lot about data. So this actually is nicely synergistic. She said to me last time we talked that there was some reading around that that she met an owner of some amount that she wanted us to consider. She will forward that to me. I will certainly disseminate it to you. I would get in touch with her ASAP to get that so that you have it as soon as I can get it to you. I find that anyone else has some interesting things they come across in our respective capacities on this issue. Also, I encourage I'd love to hear. I'd love to see if you see something just so that we don't have to spend a lot of time getting up to speed catching up when we get to these points. I'd love to I don't know what's hitting your radar from other things from prosecution issues. A lot of my prosecutors are telling me that things like the YASA have a socio-economic bias. Disproportionate impacts and both color also. YASA? Thank you. These happen. Right, I don't know. I was just going to say that's obviously important information though, if that's a perception. There's a study that it's statistically been validated but that doesn't mean that there are issues or problems. That's okay. That's okay. Well, you two have most risk assessments that include any criminal history on them are generally concerned about. Can you say what? To have a bias built into them because it already includes criminal history information which happens itself. Is it self? So, inheriting another jurisdiction? Yes, exactly. It's embedded. That would be interesting to see if Stephanie will address that. I don't know, but I think that's a really important question. Let's ask her. There's so much emphasis on her now. I think it's a really good point. Let's ask her. I don't know the specifics of what she's coming to do. Does she have that? I don't know much about Stephanie's background so I don't know how much she knows about screening tools specifically. I don't know about the screening tools. I don't know about the screening tools. That's really relevant because we're trying to find objective ways to make these decision points. And if the tools that we're using... There's been lots of conversations which we can bring to a lot of conversations around particularly in some assessment tools in the pretrial world that have like the Arnold's tool that the PSA that apparently takes out a lot of the built-in bias and then there's the ORS tool which has the criminalized tool. Criminalizing assessment tools are beginning, middle and end. They are here now. It would certainly be something we could at least ask her where to go. There's a lot more storm for traffic stop. We have this drooper and he falls in this category but what does that mean when you look at all his videos the ticket arrest he's falling and he falls in this category. So how do you what corrective action is going to take? Would you be able to give Stephanie a little bit of advance notice on these questions? Yes. In case she's still prepared? Yes. Take advantage of her neighbor. Thank you. Yeah, I was just going to say there's a lot out there on the screen. Sure. Yes, I will. Thank you. There is no alternative. There is no alternative. Nothing's perfect. We all appreciate that. That's it again. Nothing's perfect and I think that people who actually think about these things do try to get what they think is the best like the most neutral so to speak tool and even those are right. All right, well in the anything else before I do chair thing? In the six minutes we have left there's obviously not much public commentary I don't think there's any new business because I think we just did it like I'm supposed to say this but she's talking to us. The next meeting again is the 10th of September the homework I just love saying that is do on the third to dated unless you're just doing 30. Anything else anyone wants to cry? The last time we got together we were putting together a pamphlet about and I told you there was something put up by the BBA if anyone has ever seen this or if they want to see it it might be worth looking at it it's out there in the district. I can get more of them I don't know I got them from this area. Do you want to go first? That would be great if we could Thank you. There's a hashtag on the cover I love this This is great I don't know how long I've been doing this Let's go for it Let me not get it I have to Alright I hope everyone appreciates it by narrowing the focus keeping everyone together dating gets to be the best That's just a lot of credit for volunteering That was for Diabolical and really That was for Diabolical and really It worked really I knew Alright Thank you That was really kind of hair-raising and I don't have much but that was really great It was very organic I had a few moments where I was like what in hell is going on but there it was We actually came up with something as a group That worked really well Everybody satisfied at least for the moment? Yes Anyone want to make a motion? I'll show you Okay