 Welcome to the, whatever it is, September 2022, meaning of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems advisory panel. I will, I'll do the, start the invites. You've just all met Judge Morrissey and we welcome her as our representative from the judiciary. Susanna, you first then, for introductions. Yes. Hi, Susanna Davis. Hello, Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Director of the State of Vermont. Can I interrupt you again? No, Erin. You can interrupt me. I'm Erin Jacobson. I work at the Attorney General's Office and the co-director of our office's Community Justice Division. Great, thank you. Tyler. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tyler Allen. I work for DCF's Family Services Division. I'm the Adolescent Services Director there and I am the commissioner designated a pointee from DCF on this panel. Great. Monica. Hi, everyone. I'm Monica Wieber and I'm with the Department of Corrections and I'm the commissioner's designated to the panel. Great. Rebecca. Hi, everyone. Welcome, Judge Morrissey. I wanted to have you on this panel. I am Rebecca Turner, head of the Public Division of the Office of the Defender General and the Defender General's designated me. Great. Jas. Hi, everyone. My name is Jessica Brown. My pronouns are she, her and hers. I am an assistant professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School as well as the associate director of the Center for Justice Reform there. My background is in criminal law and restorative justice. And hi, Judge Morrissey. Hey, how you doing, Jas? Evan. Good evening, my name, excuse me. My name is Evan Nien and I work for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Great. Seng. Hello, Seng Ren. I'm the Evaluation and Programming Analyst at Shelburne Farms. I'm a community member on the panel and designated by the director of Racial Equity. Thank you. And I have phone number, which I'm assuming is Robin. Nope. This is Aetan, Christopher Lawrence. Got that wrong. It is. Well, I'm here in lieu of Robin and full disclosure, I am also an appointee to the Criminal Justice Council, but I am not wearing a hat tonight. Right. Sheila. Good evening, everyone. Sheila Linton, she, her, hers, co-founder and executive director of the Roots Social Justice Center and community at large panel member appointed by the Attorney General. Good evening. Hi, Aetan. Hi, hello. Witchie. Yeah, I didn't get forgotten this time. Hi, guys. Witchie Poo, pronouncing him as data warehouse consultant and social justice advocate appointed by Susanna Davis. Thanks. Yeah, and you're fired. Jennifer Pullman. Jennifer? Yes, I'm Jennifer Pullman. I am the director of the Center for Crime Victim Services. Excited to see Judge Morrissey, who I've worked with in the past. It makes a long time. Nice to see you. Yes, we all circle back somehow, don't we? It is true. And I'm not a voting member, but I'm here by grace of Aetan and the other committee members. So I'm just happy to listen in and participate when asked. So thank you. Thank you for being here. And then the person who records everything we say, Grant. Hello, hello, Grant Taylor. And here, just taking minutes. He takes really good minutes, generally. And that's the thing. There's one thing Witchie got in touch with me about, he, we left him off of the July minutes. So we'll have to update those. That's just something that... There's no reason to apologize. It's our fault. So, all right. Announcements, Chief Don will not be able to be here. That I think that is the only announcement. I was going to announce Judge Morrissey, but she's already done that. So we don't have to do that. I wanted to just remind people about the chat etiquette. I'm getting that I'm like old because I cannot split concentration. I mean, if it's in the chat, it might as well be on Mars for me. I just like, I'm looking here. I'm doing five other things. I am not clicking another button. If somebody wants to monitor the chat and bring that forward, we can do that. I'm going to just say, I'm not going to do that because I get lost. I get really lost. It's hard enough facilitating the meeting. But I've been noticing everybody else seems, it seems to be my problem that everyone else seems to have no problem with. Oh, and in the chat, and I'm like, how are they paying attention to the chat? I mean, how is this even possible? And it's that I'm old. So, oh, Susanna's got her hand up. I was going to say, I'm happy to volunteer to be the chat monitor, but also I think that you're raising a very good point because anybody who's watching the recording up with the fact will not have access to the chat. And so even if people on the meeting are comfortable using chat, it's still a good idea to vocalize what's being said just for the record. I mean, I know we do also take minutes. So that's another important part of it, but I don't think it's an old thing at all. Okay, well, thank you. That's a really good point because there are going to be people who can't, they're probably not going to look at the minutes, but they will listen to Orca Media's recording. So, all right. Where I wanted to start was pretty much just, again, what this meeting is about is more or less the sort of a big long buildup to the report that's going to be due in December of 2023. We, as you all know, have subcommittees that are working away. The main point of the meeting tonight is to get an update on what those committees are doing. Also issuing some sorts of correctives, directives of the AdiSort to those committees as we proceed with this work. And that really is it, except that Susanna has a request that I put at the beginning of the agenda because it was different and I would like to see the floor to her. Are you up with that, Susanna? You're muted. Yes. Okay. That was my, let me hurry up and open this agenda really fast phase. No, I know that it was about the language access. And I worry that I won't be able to articulate it as well as when we talked about it. But the short story is perhaps I can just start with a quick update for the group and may have mentioned this in the past but we have been working on putting together a strong statewide language access plan proposal. The purpose of this proposal is so that language access can be expanded and better streamlined across state government, which we're using to include executive, legislative and judiciary branches, including the independent agencies as much as possible. And so what we're hoping for with that is some level of uniformity and consistency with the ways in which the members of the public can interact with state government. In other words, it shouldn't matter which branch of government you go to in terms of which level of access you should have to participate in government in your language. There are also some federal minimum requirements. So to a large extent, this is not optional. So part of it is making sure that state government is in compliance and part of it is just making sure that we're going above and beyond just being in compliance. So to that end, we've been looking a lot at what the executive branch can do, what the legislative branch can do and of course what the judiciary branch can do in terms of language access. I know the judiciary has been hard at work on language access for years now. So I don't purport to be starting a new project when this is already covered territory. I see a few people in this call who have been a deep part of that work. Rebecca Turner and others. So I'm not trying to reinvent wheels but what I am thinking about is now that we've got a sort of draft set of recommendations that are broad and really statewide in nature, I would like to be able to think about how that can be tailored to the judiciary and the other branches of government that touch on criminal and juvenile justice systems in ways that don't conflict with good existing practices or planned good practices. I've lost the thread of the sentence but I think that's the main point. So I was hoping that the ARDAP might be interested in helping to think through what that would mean for language access in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Great, Jennifer. Thank you. And I know, Susanna, I believe you were a part of a project that we just completed with a Middlebury intern that was a communication justice access project. So I would love to share that with the group that we are in our intern did a great survey in terms of really understanding what the access issues are and trying to put that in a cultural context as well. So I'm happy to send that on to you, Aton. And again, Susanna was really helpful with that. I know Senator Ram Hinsdale was as well. So that might be something, again, Susanna is aware of it but just something that might also be of interest to the members. And I'm happy to forward that report on to you, Aton and you could distribute that. Great, I will do so. Thank you. And Wichee had an issue, he wrote me earlier about that, about being able to read that. Wichee, go ahead, you had a comment. Uh-oh, I don't know what that comment was but I got a new one I guess on this link, Texas. And I think something that really stands out to me recently, a refugee in our community was put through the criminal justice system is starting with law enforcement and just sort of like tangentially being involved. Some of the things that really stood out to me is that during the arrest, there was no interpretation services. Even the one call that God was to an interpreter and that was the one call, that's it. So I would really sort of push us to also think about using sort of real world experiences of what's happening in our day to day, especially with people like ACDC and maybe other refugee and asylum seeker organizations because I do think this is an issue. Just even just being on the sidelines, I'm seeing it an issue. And also like, I like this idea of cultural relevance, because like a word for us directly translated, it's not gonna mean the same thing. In a different culture in that language and also like reminding us that not everyone can read and write. Like that's not an international standard. So also thinking that alternative media is required when talking about language access and communication access. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that. Jennifer, you were being too generous actually that project that the student did. I think that was, I saw her presented at a recent meeting but we didn't have a whole lot to do with it but we were really impressed by the work product. So that's great. I'm in the process of emailing Etan right now and she did a great job and she was really excited to be able to do that. And I felt like it provided some a good baseline in terms of what people think about what the justice issues are for people with communication and language issues and what it really is in Vermont. And it's so interesting that I think unlike other states we don't have that dominant secondary language and how we present those pieces to stakeholders and how we really work to make sure that we are in a place where we're accommodating and making sure that again, it's equal access to justice and for all sides. And so I'm gonna forward that right now to Etan. I'm working on it. So thank you, Susanna. And thank you again for your wisdom. And then Rebecca. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I was just gonna say to Wiggy's points, I think it may be helpful for me to send this group the draft recommendations that we did put together because I do think that they speak to a little bit of what you said Wiggy including selecting from an interpreter pool that does include people in Vermont who may be able to have a better understanding of some of the local or more geographic or Vermont specific terminology or concepts that someone from maybe a national vendor may not fully understand and recognize. And I think that's a cousin. It's a close sibling, I think, of the cultural relevance thing, right? A direct translation isn't always gonna be accurate. And so I think part of that has to do with geography and then also with direct or indirect. And then the other point you made, I have forgotten it in this moment, but I do remember thinking that it was in the draft. So I'll send it to Atah now. He can forward the draft to the group. We'll do. And Rebecca. Yeah, Susanna, thanks for sharing the work of this particular project with this group to others who haven't been a part of this process of this project. Susanna and others have done tremendous amount of work to prepare and get to this point of recommendations. And Susanna, thank you. It's no small feat and it's been impressive to watch. I am, I still have to share our comments from the Defender Generals on this, but for purposes of what you shared with this group, I think the primary concern I have is because the judiciary's effort on this front is, as you say, a couple of years at least, recently moving along, you know, setting forth a manual of expectations, right? Of a baseline things and talking specifically about what our primary problem right now on this front, both interpreters and translators, getting accurate translations in the legal realm is making sure we have not just people who we can hire but competent people and not competent people in terms of, you know, casualness of proficiency of both languages but proficient in the legalese of this specialized world, right? And so I think my concern about this effort to set sort of statewide standards is not, and I appreciate you saying that you don't intend to conflict or duplicate. My worry is that where there is tension that it doesn't diminish or go lower than what has already been set forth because I know that different executive agencies have different needs, but as you're already well aware, in the legal realm, it's specifically, you know, providing accurate interpretation for defendants, for witnesses, for all those who need the interpretation translation accuracy is like the difference between liberty, right? And freedom and things like that. And so that's it. And also as a side note, but I wanted to share, you know, you had asked for some information in terms of what we have spent in terms of our interpreters and translators internally. And so we'll be sharing that with you in the next week. But secondly, I really thank Richie for bringing up that point because I also see that a huge need that is not addressed, I see Susanna from the recommendations that this language access project has proposed so far. I hear Richie's concern being the specific instance where he said refugees, I see any person of limited English proficiency who is under custody of law enforcement, police officers before they've been assigned a defense attorney, before a case has been filed in court so it hasn't triggered those legal protections. What I see is not any, by the way, any standardized policy towards how to deal with getting secure, competent, independent interpreters in those situations to make sure that rights are known. I wanted to circle back a looping this point to Eton's email to us getting ready for this meeting today about while we focus on these new efforts, second look and others, he reminded us to not lose what we had previously recommended that we wanted to go forward on in our first report, Eton. And one of those pieces in there directly connects to this point. We had, I pointed out, and it was including the report that the legislature has previously enacted legislation regarding the requirement to provide confident interpreters for the hearing impaired by law enforcement. And the legislation also includes an exclusionary rule that doesn't have any definite endpoint where if statements are obtained without competent, a hearing impaired interpretation at the time that law enforcement is involved, that person can have that evidence suppressed should there be a result in criminal proceeding. This is pre-ADA legislation and only specific to hearing impaired individuals. Our recommendation in that first report was to explore whether or not that should be expanded to not just hearing impaired, but all limited English proficient individuals. I just wanted to bring that back up to the surface in this discussion. Yeah, thank you for those points. I think to your first one about whether a statewide policy would go lower, would lower a standard, we intend to set a strong floor and then strongly, strongly encourage every department agency or branch to go above and beyond that floor as needed. So that means anyone in a health context, clinical settings, court settings, other criminal justice matters, right? Anything that you need that's tailored to your agency or department, then we want you to do that. And so what we wanna do is just set a sort of, a floor, not a ceiling. So I think technically what I'm saying is we are gonna probably go a little bit lower than what judiciary needs, but we'll support judiciary in any other ancillary entities in going above that however needed. I hope that that is helpful. And then yeah, I do think that the second point about securing competent and independent interpreters early, as early as possible in the process is something that I would be happy to make sure it gets included in the proposal because that is, you know, it's like you said, right? If one word difference can make the difference between you taking a plea or not, or taking a shot or not or whatever it is, then I wanna make sure that we have people who can do this. And a lot of times we ask, a lot of people assume that any layperson can, who's multilingual can interpret. And that's not true. And I think that we've been defaulting to that for a long time because of the low number of people who may speak a given language in the States and we try to make do with what we have, but I don't think that that's an acceptable standard. Okay, witchy. And then Erin. Man, I love our conversations. So some of the things that sort of stood out to me when Rebecca was talking, definitely like this whole profession, like different professions have different jargon and even like just taking even like not speak, spoken English languages, right? Like if you speak English, it's so hard to understand jargon. It's so hard, like hard to understand acronyms. So like, if anything that is across the board and just reminding ourselves that all of this are general barriers for people. And Susanna, something that I really like that you're mentioning is that it's the floor and not the ceiling. And I'm almost thinking, you know, this is really reflective of our conversation of the criminal justice data warehouse, right? Like the greater vision at the end of the day is to have like a Bureau of Social Justice Statistics, right? But like that's not realistic in the next few years. So we need to like sort of build it up and build the foundation for it in little by little. I would almost want to ask like are there, is there like a longer vision and like hopeful timeline for the different, types of interpreters that you're gonna want and then for the different types of services that they're gonna provide within the specific like professional industries? Or is there just like, here's where we're gonna try to do the first one and hopefully we'll get it. So just kind of wanting to ask about scalability. Yeah, so again, the absolute bare, bare, bare minimum is let's get into federal compliance, right? That is the bare minimum and it is never the end all be all goal to strive for. So I would say the first thing is whatever's the shortest timeline to get us there. After that, we are gonna require, if this moves forward because I have to say this out loud, we can propose anything we want, but it takes people in positions of authority greater than mine to be able to say, okay, yeah, sure. And this is gonna come with quite a price tag. So it's not gonna be an easy road to advocacy on this. So I hope to see some of you in the legislature testifying in support of it. But we're gonna, one of the things if we're successful here is that we're gonna require every agency slash department slash branch to have a language access plan that is specific to its own needs and its own services. And we will require revision and resubmission every year for the first five years. And then after that, no less frequently than once every five years. And so a lot of the questions around timeline are gonna have to be dictated by the initial draft of those tailored plans. But I would say that there are some very obvious ones that need to be worked out. For example, anything having to do with emergency communications or public service announcements, anything having to do with health, particularly in clinical contexts, anything having to do with justice or the courts education interpreting because that's a whole nother, it's an entirely different field. So there are a few that we know are gonna be high urgency and high priority. Erin. I'm just wondering, Susanna, I have like a lot of thoughts and questions about this. And then as I was formulating those, I'm realizing, oh, I bet a lot of those questions are answered in the draft proposal. So I'm just wondering if we can put this issue on the agenda again for next month, or if there's some other way that you would like to get feedback or hear our questions that we might have or our ideas. And I'm not trying to cut off the conversation, but that was just occurring to me how we can have this feedback loop about this issue. Yeah, it's an excellent question. Go ahead, Susanna, go ahead. No, it's an excellent question. I did send, so the draft that I sent out is a numbered list of recommendations with findings. So it's not gonna be comprehensive at all. It's just, it's pretty variable. So I don't know that your answers are gonna be, your questions are gonna be answered there. Give it a look. And then we created an online, it's a two-question form that you can respond to that says, what did we get right? What did we get wrong? Anything else, which is actually three questions. I can't count. So I'm happy to send that to this group as well. We had originally set a deadline because we did two rounds of community engagement on this. And so we originally gave the community a deadline of September 9th, which was last Friday to respond. But of course this is evolving over time and I would be very grateful if you all wanted to provide additional feedback. We can keep the form open. So is the best thing for me to do to put that in chat, A-Ton, or to email it to you so that you can send it to a company, the draft? Whichever you prefer, frankly. I will do both. Susanna, let me add, this says confidential draft at the top, do not distribute. People should just know that, right? Correct. And the reason for that is because again, it's a proposal, it's a draft, of a proposal that's got to go to a bunch of people. And so I don't want anybody to take this as a guarantee of what we're promising to do. I want you to, don't send it to the newspaper. Yeah. Anyone else? I'm perfectly, I mean, that's great. We'll put it on the agenda, Erin, for next month. Does that sound reasonable? I'm assuming that's not adding some additional burden or item to Susanna's already full plate, but I just think after reading the draft and having some time to think about it, then well, it would be great to revisit this. I think this is really important and a lot of work has already gone into it, so. Okay. And as Rebecca pointed out, this was a very small thing back for us in 2019. I remember it, I don't actually have that report memorized, although sometimes I feel like I do. I think that it was two lines somewhere in there. That's what I remember about language access. So again, protecting our work product going forward, there are gonna be things that have been solved or not solved, but addressed from that report, and then there are gonna be a lot of things that weren't. One of the thoughts I had, and it's not a thought I'd like, is we may be in a position where we have to prioritize once again. I hate thinking that way because it gets us into that scarcity model that equity work always seems to get into. I don't mean to be a cynic, and if I weren't so Joe-eyed and optimistic, I would believe there was something behind this, but it just does, it seems very strange to me that whenever a lot of equity work comes up, the next question is money. That's like the next question. And money comes up a lot in a lot of different areas certainly, but I don't know how we address that. I'm simply bringing it up because it will be an issue. I think money is going to be really big, a really big issue this coming session. And while I would prefer not to prioritize, we may be asked to do so. It wouldn't be the first time, I guess, is what I'm saying. Rebecca. Tom, what if next month's meeting is when we talk in more depth about this LAP proposal, Susanna, that at that same time, we are also prepared to sort of, we'll have reviewed and I'm happy to, or whoever, we can talk about that 2019 in reference to language access. And just bring it some fresh air and see if there is a way to, nonexuously have to even prioritize because they may be, may not be a financial issue if we're thinking about in terms of prioritizing. But it seems like an appropriate time to bring up the past recognition of those needs in our prior reports. Great, well, we've got one agenda item. All right, thank you. Anybody else? No? Okay. Can I say one more thing? Oh, sure, of course. I think Rebecca touched on this. We're talking a lot about language access and the bulk of what we're talking about is spoken languages or languages other than English. But inextricably linked here is a conversation about accessibility. And so you'll also find in there a lot of discussion about American Sign Language and technology and what the technology provides because we find that you can't really talk about language access without also talking about general technological and access. So if you have questions or feedback that is specific to accessibility even if you don't think it fits, send it anyway. Cause this is something that, you know if we can't champion it we can at least work with folks in Dale to lead on it. Great. Thank you. Anyone else on this topic which we will revisit on the 11th of October? Okay. Moving along, the reports of these of the subcommittees. Rebecca, you I believe are first with the second look subcommittee which you have. Yes. Go ahead. All right. I'll kick it off although there are many members of the subcommittee here tonight. So I don't want to dominate the discussion but we did meet second time and it was let's see, I'm going to tell I'm going to share who was there. Witchie, Ting, you were there. Ataan, Jennifer Pullman, Evan, Aaron and Jess. Is that everybody? That was a big crew. It was a good crew. I think we have nearly everyone there. Anyways, and so we talked about sort of how we were going to how we were going to proceed and go forward on this. We first started by acknowledging the similar effort going forward on the same issue exploration and sentencing commission. Many of us on the subcommittee are also on sentencing commission, not all of us. We spent some time discussing whether or not it was worthwhile to go forward or not. I shared because sentencing commission had just met a few days before our subcommittee met for our DAP on this issue and sentencing commission agreed to, they discussed the acknowledge that our DAP was focusing on second look and decided that it was worth continuing efforts, that it was not seen as duplicative. It was not seen as a waste of time. And in fact, it was, again, others can share, but appropriate for sentencing commission to consider a second look that the mandate of sentencing commission is sufficiently different than our DAPs focus on it. It's both narrow in sentencing commission. It's only criminal court system look in terms of scope of sentencing commission and not anchored by racial or ethnic disparities either. And so the subcommittee on our DAP decided to go forward as well. There was some concern that there would be the resultant many more meetings, but I think what we landed upon was that that was a necessary part of this process because not everybody on the subcommittee and our DAP and our DAP are on sentencing commission and vice versa. And then we proceeded to figure out then how to go about the approach of what we wanted to see in a second look. And we broke it down into six, five categories that we were going to approach and Aaron Jacobson gallantly tried to organize us by setting up some folders on this at the AG's website, but we had some access as she's talking about access problems, Susanna. Do others want to share and talk about the specific things we want to go and look into more depth? Can I just ask because I'm newly on this committee now for about 41 minutes, can you just tell me generally what a second look? I mean, I think I generally understand what it is, but maybe this will get answered as you go through your bullet points, but can you just tell me generally what it is that you're talking about? Yeah, sure. Sorry, we just slipped into that. Second look is an informal way of referencing all sorts of generally legislation that has been enacted around the country, at the state level, at the federal level for Step Act and by Congress, but it generally comes down to this legislation and ability to take a second look at a sentence previously imposed beyond the means currently available for review, not direct appeal, not a habeas petition. We acknowledge that in Vermont, our second look abilities are pretty much limited to Rule 35 and sentence reconsideration and looking at how narrow that is limited to 90 days, right? And so we are looking at both reconsidering a proposal to expand sentence reconsideration laws in Vermont right now. So we're looking at that specific statute. There was discussion about how we had come to an agreement on what that expansion could be in Sentencing Commission, but then it died in the legislature, I think it was 2020. And so there's interest in revisiting that now a couple of years later, but going even beyond that and looking at things like First Step and other states, where they look at focus on certain and particularly serious types of convictions and therefore the correspondingly lengthy terms of imprisonment and identifying those as the high priority of people who should warrant second look. There are others that are looking at it from different angles from juveniles or in use at the time that the crime was committed, et cetera. And so the question is, and our concern for our panel is what can second look legislation do to address and correct racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system? Okay, all right, thank you. But I thought that I generally thought that's what it meant, but I appreciate the explanation. Thank you. Rebecca, I have a question. There have been some mention about the two groups, the two committees meeting together. Where are we gonna go with that? Do you have a sense? I don't have a sense. I don't, actually my sense was that there was that they were gonna continue to meet separately because that we were going to provide notice to each other's subcommittees, members, to make sure that anyone who was interested to sit in would in fact be able to sit in, right? Okay. But to not combine them. Again, I think the concern is that we want these two bodies to come along their own ways with their different focuses potentially, right? And not let anyone lose the focus. So, and if we come up with multiple suggestions, I think it's fantastic or not. I mean, we can figure it out. The point is not to shut each other's efforts out from the other. We're not trying to silo the two, but we're also trying to make sure that each focus and what each panel member, commission member brings to the table isn't otherwise lost. Okay. Do others wanna weigh in on that? I think that's right. And I would say that both second look subcommittees are just getting started on their work. And for example, the RDAF second look subcommittee, we have a list of questions that is informing, essentially it's like our homework. What are these questions that we want to answer? That will direct our research. One of those questions is about data, racial data in Vermont and where are the gaps? I don't know if the second look subcommittee of the sentencing commission is also going to be doing that research. All of that said, I think Rebecca articulated it well that the two groups will inform each other. Even if the two groups have, especially starting out, maybe different focuses, but I would envision that down the road, maybe we'll have shared meetings occasionally, but I like that the two different committees who have different charges can look at the second look question from those perspectives. Erin, start to interrupt. I just got a text from A-Ton, he said his power just went out. So he's frozen and I can't tell that he can hear. I think it's just so intrigued that he's listening. I just want to give you a heads up and everyone a heads up. I think it looks like we lost him. Well, why don't you keep going and I'll see you know, please I'm sorry. Yeah, while we're waiting for A-Ton to come back, I mean, just in case it's interesting to other ARDAP members and witchy you could certainly weigh in too. And I see your hand is up, so maybe you do want to, but I'll just quickly lay out the five questions that we posed to ourselves, the ARDAP group did. What are the second look look like in other jurisdictions? The one I just mentioned, data in Vermont and what are the data gaps regarding disparities? What about data from other jurisdictions regarding disparities? What other questions might we want to ask and answer specifically as that relates to what would the structure of second look look like in Vermont? And what are our metrics for success? So we want to take a look both at Vermont and Vermont data and what are the data gaps but also what are other jurisdictions doing who've already maybe enacted second look legislation or have second look programs of some kind or another and what data are they relying on to inform their programs? And then not that I'm moderating this conversation but I think witchy has his hand up and then Evan had his hand up. Thanks Erin, on just an FYI that if A-Ton lost power it could mean that I'm also going to lose power but unlike A-Ton I don't have cell reception where I live so I will just be out and about which means a great excuse to just frolic in the rain. So I just wanted to add to Erin's sort of like just a reminder that I think or a gentle reminder that at the end of the day we're sort of like at the, you know, for lack of better words here just like bagging legislature to pick up our recommendations and push them through. So I think our ability to be able to do it in coalition with the sentencing commission and being able to sort of be in line with another advisory group I think will go a very long way when it comes to time for testimony and for getting legislators to move the needles. So just really thinking not as we move forward with our work to really think about ways that we do over a lot that we could sort of help both the sentencing commission and our second look committee out. Is A-Ton on? I think A-Ton is on. I am back. I just want to read it. Fabulous. Three, one, two. So if somebody wants to do the honors of calling on people and so on please feel free because I can't see a thing. We're having a time to talk. Evan has his hand up and I had called on him right when you rejoined us, A-Ton. Okay, great. Thanks. I just wanted to add that or follow up on which he's comment, I do think that a high level of coordination including mutual meetings with the sentencing commission subcommittee would add a lot of value. I don't see why the sentencing commission would not be interested in some of the issues regarding racial disparities that our subcommittee would be looking at. And there are, there's a lot of people who sit on both subcommittees. But I've mentioned that suggestion before and it doesn't seem like the groups are interested in meeting together. But I do think it would be beneficial. And then I also wanted to mention that in addition to the questions that Aaron mentioned, this subcommittee was going to be interested in. I threw out 15 or so questions that I thought needed to be answered before a proposal could be presented to the legislature such as, I won't list them all because there's a lot of them, but which offenses should be eligible? Which types of sentences should be eligible? What length of sentence should be eligible? How many times should someone be eligible to request a second look? How many times may a sentence be reduced through a second look? And then the only other one I'll mention today, which I think perhaps is the most important one is what is the role of victims going to be in this process? And so I think that there's a lot of questions that need to be answered. I suspect that there is varying level of interest in this topic by the various state's attorneys. And I know that answering some of those questions is gonna go a long way towards, addressing any issues that some of them might have. Thank you. And for those on the phone. I'm sorry. This is Susanna, for those on the phone, there was a link shared in the chat. It's a link to the subcommittee shared folder in SharePoint. Good, which is where Evan's questions are. And I'm so sorry, Evan, that I forgot about that. You're absolutely right. You did have a whole bunch of really important questions and they are in our subcommittees folder, along with the other questions that I listed. And anyone is welcome to take a look at that. You can add questions, thoughts. If you are interested, even if you're not on the subcommittee and you find good examples from other jurisdictions, for example, please feel free to add to our research file. It's really helpful to have everyone's thoughts and expertise, so. Oh, and Evan, I would say that I don't, I'm not opposed to all of us meeting together. I really, I just like that at the beginning, the two bodies who have their respective second look subcommittees, I like the idea of those two respective committees being able to get started on their own. And then I would envision that it would be important for us to come together at some point. So just, that's my own thinking on the matter right now. Jennifer, also. A really simple question. Chat, I'm not able to access or see the chat for some reason, which I normally do. And I noticed at the beginning of the call, I didn't see it either. Is there, I don't know, can, I don't know why I can't see chat or access it. So I'm just wondering if anybody else is having any problems with that or if it's just me. Ting has her hand up. Ting, are you co-signing that or separate? Yes, I'm co-signing that. I don't have access to the chat either. I'm assuming is that because I'm not affiliated with the institution that has access to like a group account of Microsoft Teams. So that is one of the reasons, one of the things that I wanted to talk about today, which is, which came up in our subcommittee meeting is the technology access, because that does post a barrier for people who don't have access to the chat. And so it's good that Ethan suggests that we don't use the chat. Aaron, this is A-tons. Yes. You and I had had that discussion that there's something that we're gonna have to do about this because Ting can never get in, Jennifer can't ever get in, which he sometimes can get in, sometimes not. And I don't know why Team paste these people. So I did go to the IT department in my office and presented this problem. And response was not satisfying. The response was, well, people just need to get the Microsoft Authenticator app. And then when you get the Teams or any Microsoft platform invite, you then have to also go to the Authenticator app and say accept. And I said, that's not very workable. And also it's not even working for some folks who are going through that process. And I said, is there something else that we as a group can use when the group is not just state government employees? And the response was, not if my office is the administrator of the group because there's all of these rules that flow from state government and security. So if anybody has any ideas, I would love to hear them. I mean, maybe we can use Zoom. I don't know if that, I would have to check about if that implicates any security issues or not. But I agree, it's really frustrating and it's unacceptable when we're trying to talk about issues where we need accessibility and transparency. Yeah. I mean, part of this is a SharePoint issue, right? The stuff is- It's a combination of Microsoft and state government rules about security measures when using those tools. Okay. Hey, Tony, you don't see, but there's a number of hands up. Go for it. Stop talking. I think it's a grant. I can't tell you the longest. I just wanted to mention that the person taking the minutes and also the group recording this meeting, neither one of us have access to any sort of chat. So we can't record it. Great news. So I think that gets set up on, I'm sorry, I'm upstreaming all the people with the hands, okay. Lynn. Thanks, Rebecca. I have an idea, but I admit that it might not be a good one because I'm not like a tech person, but I'm wondering whether or not it would make a difference if the people who were not employed by Vermont state government were somehow able to get like partner.vermont.gov email addresses. And if that would solve the problem, it would also have the added benefit of, well, I'll say it's also relevant to the fact that everything we do, including the stuff in chats is subject to the Vermont Public Records Act. So even if those individuals are using their private email addresses, their private email addresses, might be subject to a Public Records Act inquiry. So it might also sort of, they might prefer to have an official email address for that purpose as well. I just a thought. Cool. And Tim, hi. Do you have your hand up? I actually didn't have my hand up, but yes, if that solves the problem, I would love to have access to that. And for me personally, teams is not the main issue. I think SharePoint is even more difficult. And not seeing the chat, I'm okay with that, but collaborating on SharePoint, I think I have a solution right now, but obviously other people had the same issue. And I assume that we are probably not going to be the last cohort of people who have this issue. So having some sort of alternative for a long run would be nice. I agree. Kayla? I'm just a little confused at how that solves the issue that we're talking about, if we're talking about transparency and accessibility for everyone. I think what I heard you say, Evan, was around of getting email addresses for those who are appointed, but how does that actually solve the overall concern of community people wanting to chime in or have access to this meeting? I don't think it actually solves the problem. I think it solves a sector of potentially the problem. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right, Sheila. I wouldn't help members of the public who might want to view the chat, but I'm just wondering whether or not it might help folks access SharePoint or at least help members of this body view the chat to the degree we decide to continue using it. But you're absolutely right. It wouldn't do any good for members of the public. And I do want to also say that though I'm not a very chat chat person, I do think for various different reasons, whether it's neurodivergent, whether it's different communication styles, whether it's in the moment, you need to express something, you just need to get it out of that. There are many reasons why people use the chat. So I agree, it's supposed to align with the Vermont Public Law. And those are supposed, and I know like in Zoom, I believe you can download the recordings of those chats. I don't know if the same platform does that too. So after the meeting, the meeting's recorded, those you do something in your system that says that I want to track or record the chat as well. And that can also get furnished into our minutes as well as documentation of the meeting. So I'm wondering if I like the idea of keeping the chat open because I feel like it creates accessibility for those who use it. Jennifer. Is this panel subject to the open meeting law? Yes. So then shouldn't we be posting this and providing link options for folks? I'm just trying to think about what that means. We have, okay, because we have them at the center from just thinking about. The meetings are posted on the Attorney General's website and the Department of Libraries. And so is the team's link to access the meeting. The trouble is, yeah, thank you. The trouble is with document access and apparently for some folks the chat too. And that's both an access issue and then just like logistics of trying to get our shared work done. So it's definitely frustrating. And we can't do the minutes in a more public fashion. That's at least that piece is more accessible. The minutes are posted to the Attorney General's offices, our DAP website. Yeah, with our agenda. Sheila, is that a new hand up? Oh, I apologize. I'll unraise. Oh, thanks. I was just gonna throw in no other hands up. What did we do when we were doing the data draft report? And we went through when there was the live edits that we were able to share at a subcommittee level. And were you able to access that? I recall you were on that subcommittee. I think Witchie had to go at seven. Oh, shoot. Well, I was a part of that effort but I don't remember how it was done, technologically speaking. We put it on SharePoint. Well, technically it was one drive, I believe. And I think that's what, it's kind of the same platform in the background. And I believe that Witchie was able to make edits to that document because I remember seeing comments by him. I was also wondering, and if you've done this already, Erin, forgive me, but there's a lot of stuff that happens in when you set up the meeting in Teams, there are those settings behind the scenes that you can turn stuff on and off. And I just wonder if it's a simple setting issue for the meeting that you have to go in and change as well. I will check on that, Monica, thank you. And I will also see about the idea of getting the at-partner emails for folks, if there's any limitations on that. I mean, I know we get those addresses for our interns, but they're time limited, but they might just be term limited like they end when the internship ends. So I'll ask about that. And then also if anyone has any other ideas or knowledge based on your work in state government, I mean, we cannot be alone with this issue where you're collaborating with folks who are outside of state government employment. So keep working on it. And I really, I'm sorry for the frustration, frustrating for me too. I have a recurring meeting for my team and I have one staff person who is also locked out of the chat for reasons we still cannot explain. And I added them at the same time to the same meeting and it's bizarre. So who knows Microsoft works in mysterious ways? But I'm happy to help try to troubleshoot this or if anybody needs somebody to be a tester, we can also help them. Great. And I'll send the link that I posted in the chat to the email, knowing of course that you might not all be able to access anything with that link, but at least you can try for those who aren't able to access the chat. And I'll just continue to work on this. Thank you, Erin. I'm back, the electricity's on. If everyone doesn't mind, there are a couple issues that which he wanted to raise on the second look stuff. And he asked me, since he was leaving at seven to bring them up for him, he had mailed them to me. Three points he wanted to raise here about the second look subcommittee. First is, have we considered hearing from people who've experienced a second look proceeding? On all sides, that's his first question. His second concerns Jeff. When Jeff said that victims of racial disparities are victims of crime, that inspired him to wonder, do we have an improved definition of racial disparities in the criminal justice system? It may do us well to have that if we are to defend this argument. Lastly, he asks, subsequently not letting go of Sheila's questions, what does accountability mean when someone has been a victim of racial disparities? And those were all directed at the second look subcommittee. They may be something that the subcommittee should take up on its own rather than the entire panel. But I wanted to put them out there at least to everyone before we did that, given that looking at that document is really not easy right now. Sheila. Thanks, Eitan. I wanna just ditto everything that was just said. And I, as I think about, I'm sorry, that accountability piece, I'm wondering around that language. When we first began this panel, we really struggled to name white supremacy, white supremacy culture in language. We struggled hard and it tore us apart. And I think it matters how we, what base we talk from, what language we use and what laws we can create from that. So I really liked that. Of trying to understand what does that racial harm look like? What does that mean? And should this committee be making some recommendations around that, like you said, to support that work? Because if we have varying definitions that have no, I won't say no legal base to them, but do not have strong enough legal base to them, then what we say and do can only be a strong, as the words that we put to it. So I'm curious to explore that idea of what that really means for us as a committee and what we can maybe propose. Rebecca. Yeah, I second Sheila's points and really appreciate what she raising these. I think that what Sheila's referencing in terms of all that work around us finally getting to a point of agreeing to use the white supremacy in our report for those who weren't here on the panel was, as Sheila described, it nearly tore us apart. But there was a result that happened from that effort that I think we can better understand from that effort that I think we can benefit from revisiting again what these terms mean in connection specifically to the work we're doing, particularly since we have fairly, you know, new numbers of people here on the panel since that discussion, right? Because I do think there should be an angering of what we mean by racial disparities fundamentally. What we mean when we say that, not just in the context of who is a victim, but understanding how that is in connection to the systems themselves. Again, bringing us back to, do we still understand, are we on the same page of what we mean when we say white supremacy here on this panel? And again, in the context of the work we're doing. Let me ask, I'm still sort of in chat mode with, well, I shouldn't use that term. Chatty mode, let me say, with a bunch of people from CRG, not CRG, CSG. And given that this is what they do all the time, I could certainly just ask them, do they have a working definition or something that we could perhaps build off of, adopt a number of different possibilities that are out there for us. But I could certainly get in touch with them and ask them, well, you guys do this work every minute of your working lives. What do you use for a definition? Do you have a definition? I'm certainly willing to take that on if the panel feels like that's what they would like to have happen. I was also thinking about CSG in this context, A-Tom, so I do think that's a great idea to see what they can say. As I say, I chat with them every so often just to say hello, and I think if I actually expanded hello into hi, I've got something to ask you. I think it would be fine. People all right with that? Yes, please. Okay, and then we can put that again on the agenda for next month as well. All right. Anything else on the second look? Okay. Which he asked me to sort of fill everyone in on his stuff, on the community safety reviews and the statewide implications, which he is sort of putting together a subcommittee on that, on that topic, partly inspired by the community safety review that was done down here in Brattleboro, admittedly controversial, but I think these things are. He is looking actively at finding these reports, other reports in the state, because when he was doing that, I said to him, well, which he that's fine, but we're a statewide committee. We can't just focus on Wyndham County and not even just Wyndham County, Brattleboro. And I had said to him there may be issues that are broader that in fact intersect with what came out of the 2019 report. If we look for more of these reviews and so I gave him some directions on that. That is ongoing for him. He, as you probably know, was running for office. I think he's just coming to the surface again of Earth after that. And he has reported to me that he has not been able to get as much as he's hoped for yet, but he is working on it. Let's see. He has a feeling he's probably going to not get more than the ones that he already has, and I'm not sure which ones he already has. His next step is going to be to get people together to figure out how to divvy up the work that he perceives needing to be done, and he will do that. But otherwise, that's really all he has to relate. And I think I preface this by saying he's just been in a political campaign just so that people don't feel that, well, you know, which he's been lying on the couch and eating bonbons. That's not exactly what's been going on. He sent me a note that he had drafted in terms of trying to get these reports from other municipalities. I helped him with that. He sent it out again. I'm not sure which ones have come in, and I will get that information and forward it to people. I think the most important point to put forth is that he is looking at convening the subcommittee in fairly short order. So for those of you who want to be on that, keep your eyes open for that. And that's about what I know there. There's, as I say, he's coming to the surface. He spent a week or so cleaning his car, for instance. And I think he's done cleaning his car now, but he's working on this as fast as he possibly can and wanted me to relate these thoughts to the group as a whole. Are there any questions on this one or concerns? Okay. We're chugging along. Anything else people want to raise at this moment? You'll remember I wrote about that in the note announcing this meeting. Something else we need to discuss. Something else we should discuss. Something else we should discuss. Possibly relating to that report from 2019? Possibly not. Our mandate was to look at disparate racial disparities in both the criminal and juvenile justice system wherever we saw them. We are not bound to the 2019 report, but I do want to remind people that we did decide the panel that one of the big things we needed to do was protect that work product and really hold the legislature accountable for where they've gone with that as time goes on. So I just want to point that out. Evan has made that point to me as well. I think it's a good point. And I just want to sort of refresh our recollection as we go forward. That's all. Anything else? I know I'm not on the group, but I know that, and I think Evan's on a meeting coming up where the criminal justice research group is going to do a piece releasing their study coming up in terms of the disparate impact on victims who are as they title it black and that that piece is going to be something that's going to be introduced. I think people are on that next meeting, but I expect Evan, I know is on it and can I'm happy to share and I you're on it too. Okay, perfect. So looking forward to that conversation because we're concerned about. That's going to be very interesting. Evan, go ahead. I was just going to add that I am going to be excuse me a part of that. Meeting and a ton. I'm glad to hear that you are as well, but I got I got this draft report. And I was like, oh, I should send this to a time we should talk about this and then it had all of these things like draft confidential. Don't disseminate. And I was like, I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't, but now at this point, but I do think that that when the final report is issued based on what I read in the draft, it's something we should take a look at. I mean, it falls specifically within our purview. You know, there's there's there's my recollection is there was some references to racial disparities amongst victims of violent crime specifically and gun crimes. And I have reason to believe that there's going to be some gun legislation as well this year. So I don't know if there's an opportunity for us maybe as a group to think about that. Whether we want to get involved in it. So I think there's a couple of issues that we should probably look at once that final report comes out. OK, OK. And I think after they do that meeting, it will be less confidential. Chris, do you know anything about this? Chris Laris. Negative. No. OK. Don't worry about it. We'll figure it out. It's all right. Just thought maybe you did. OK. Well, as soon as it's done, I'll I'll ask for permission and I don't think it'll be a problem getting it to disseminate it among the R DAP as a whole. The I think the last thing and it's not on the agenda agenda. Has to do with Evan's concern and my concern back when we were done with the division of racial justice statistics, or at least we were pretending we were. Or now I won't say we. That's not fair because Monica wasn't pretending. I was pretending that we were done. I was doing that. One of the ones in issue that we about Evan and I thought was important had to do with our responsibilities toward the Criminal Justice Council, which at the time that Act 54 was passed in 2017 was still the Criminal Justice Training Council. Now. Evan, you can correct me here if I go completely off the ranch, but I don't think I will. The council is still in a process of gelling. In this new in this new incarnation when people ask about it, I always sort of say they have as many people as the entire Vermont State Senate. Our on this council right now and that should make you say good luck and God bless. So they're still trying to feel their way towards what do they have to do? How do they have to do it? I know right now they're particularly concerned with curricular questions in terms of training that goes on at the Police Academy. I that's their focus now. That is not their soul focus by any stretch of the amount of anyone's imagination. But Evan and I talked about this and it just doesn't feel like it's a really good time to kind of go and so what do you want from us? Because I think the answer is going to be scary either way either fix it or tell us what to do or something that we really don't want to get involved in. They've got their work that they've got to do too. So we're sort of on hold still with that. Even though it's statutorily required that we pay attention to this there's not much to be done at this moment. Except watch which can be very interesting. But as I say we were thinking we really need to wait a little before before making any more moves. They need to get more gelled. So any questions comments concerns alright then then you can all go eat dinner I guess soon. Our next meeting if there's not any other business which I think I've asked now three times so I'll stop doing it. Our next meeting is on the 11th of October. We already know some of the agenda items are going to be. I will put those on. Aaron's going to work on trying to get us all access to something. It just seems so embarrassing that we have to spend time on this but you know we do. It should just be easy for the love of God but it's not. So anyway we will work on that things will crop up. I will send out emails letting you know when new documents show up on whatever site we're using and please review them as they come to you. And that's really all we have for tonight. Shall we be formal? Does someone want to make that all important motion? That all important motion is to adjourn. Anyone want to second that? I'll second that motion. I was going to say be brave. All right. Everyone thank you very much. As I said this was an update. Glad people are still going ahead and I will see you all next month and talk to you much sooner. Thanks everyone for all of your help too. Have a good one. Good night.