 and just go around and introduce ourselves for the camera. James Pepper, Department of State of the Serenities and Chairs. Jeff Jones at large. Monica Weaver, Department of Correction. AIDS Hunt, Nass, Thread and Longa, Chair. Mary Scott, State Police. Karen Vastine with DCF, the Department for Children and Families. Sheila Linton, She, Her, Community Outlaw, and the Social Justice Center. We're taking care of Attorney General's office. And? Stephanie Savino, University of Vermont. Okay. Announcements, which are really always regrets. Rebecca and Jessica are on their way running late. Jen Fairbow and Brian Greerson will not be here this evening. And I knew this a while ago, I guess. That's it for my announcements. Anybody else has that, anything? Yeah, no. No, I don't have any announcements. Okay, well, I mean, you know, we could be some, but yeah, right. Okay. The minutes. Okay, I'll put an announcement up. So the race against racism in Vermont is happening in Montpelier on September 22nd at 11 o'clock. And I believe that's a high school. There's lots of information out about it. But the funds that are being raised for this event are going to the Ethnic Studies Coalition. And so that's, for me, that's one of our partners that we work with around the state in creating the curriculum, Ethnic Studies Curriculum. So we hope that people, if you're not able to physically make it there to walk, run, stroll, however you wish, that you will please make a donation and support people and organizations that are doing it. What day does that again? It's on September 22nd, which is a Sunday at 11 o'clock in Montpelier. I believe it starts at the high school and you can Google the race against racism in Vermont and they'll have a plethora of information in ways that you can get involved. And like where we can donate if we can get them. You have all the things. Great, thank you kindly. Great. Anything else? Thank you. Okay. Moving right along, minutes. Um, I'm hoping you were all able, so are there any changes that people feel needs to be made, any additions, subtractions, anything? This was the moment. It's good to me. Looks good. Does anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay, it's been seconded. All in favor of approving the minutes as they are here. Aye. All opposed. All abstentions. Staining. I just wanted to make a note that I've not really been able to meet the minutes because from my understanding they came fairly recently and it wasn't in a time of manner which I could get through them before this meeting. So I wanted to be transparent that I'm stating for those reasons and I'm also bringing that up because I have recognized that I think we consistently have minutes come out extremely late or not even be ready for our next meeting potentially. And so of those of us who might miss a meeting and or those of us who want to understand and not forget the content and the messaging and the value of what was in those in the meeting would really like to try to figure out in one timely way that we can get the meetings out to our members and out to the community at large because it's not just us who are on this panel that might want to access that information to be prepared to be here or to give input is also the community at large that is invested in that state and what we're doing here. Thank you. Thanks. I hear you. Do we know who does the person who's responsible for getting the minutes out? I'll try to be better to turn to that task more quickly. I will also note that they do a great job of getting their videos out almost immediately. So if you are looking to check out what happened that is a resource also. But that's not to excuse the need to get the minutes out. Okay. All right. Moving right along. Dr. Stephanie Seglino who's going to speak about, well, there it is, data needs to track racial disparities in the non-criminal justice system. Nice to be here. Thanks for listening to me. I am feeling a little bit self-conscious because not everybody loves data as much as I do. And I want to make this exciting for you. We'll try if I can do that. So I put this together with my colleague Nancy Brooks that I've been analyzing the traffic stop data with for the last several years. And we've also had input from other people that are using the traffic stop data and have had a number of conversations with people around the data. And so we thought it would be useful given that you're writing a report with recommendations on some of these issues to give you a sense of where we see some of the deficiencies and where those statute can be revised to make sure that we can collect the data that we need. So, you know, many states started this much a long time ago. North Carolina was the first state in 2000. And I'm going to show you their website because it really is a model for what we could do here in Vermont to do a better job of tracking racial disparities. And as I see it, and I think those of us who do this work, there are two goals of this race data collection in the criminal justice system. One is for the institutions themselves, whether it is the police departments, whether it is the attorney general's office or the state's attorney's office or the department of corrections to use this as a management tool to be able to understand better what the racial disparities are. An effort to collect that data and to put it together in a way that is straightforward and accessible, you don't really have the benefit of that. This really shows up in terms of policing because I think police officers don't really know what percentage of drivers they stop that are black versus Hispanic versus white. And so the data are really a reflection on how policing takes place. And I think of it in the same way that you may think that you're not overeating, but it's the scale that's gonna tell you how you're doing. So the data are really just a way to manage oneself. So that's one goal of these data. And the other is really to promote community trust and to develop a better relationship with the community. And I think it's fair to say that just nationwide, community police relations are fraught in that it's an important goal to be able to build better relations for the community to feel they understand what police officers are doing. And also, I think in some ways, some of their misconceptions can also be corrected by the data. So that is the twofold purpose of these data. And we are not yet there with the data collected in Vermont being able to meet both of those goals. So just a little bit of background. The legislation was passed in 2014 that required all law enforcement agencies to submit its data on September 1 of 2016 and annually thereafter. And the legislation indicates that the Criminal Justice Training Council was supposed to receive the data and work with a vendor to make sure the data is coded consistently and is posted in a timely manner and essentially deal with the quality issues around the data. So that's where we are. And, oops, I guess things are working. So what I'm gonna do is spend a lot more time on just telling you where some of the issues are with the traffic stop data because that's the most developed in the statute. We think it would be useful for there to be a recommendation that the state also, law enforcement also produced use of force reports. And finally, of course, racial disparities. We observed them at many stages in the criminal justice process and we really don't have any way to co-gently put together the data at these various levels to be able to trace this process. And so we're gonna talk about a bill that was actually proposed last year, H284, just to gotta reinforce the need for that. So this is what the current legislation requires in terms of DDS. Can I ask you a question when it would be appropriate to ask you a question? Anytime is good. So I just wanted to clarify a question when you said that you haven't been able to meet those goals of the wands. You said the two goals of the institutions and promoting community trust, but you haven't been able to meet both of those. Can you just explain a little bit more what you mean by you haven't been able to meet both of those? Well, I would say the statute has not resulted in us as a state being able to meet those goals. And I think why that is will become clear as I show you the data. And so I might just wait to kind of put all the information on the table and then if you have more questions, I can answer that. Great. And then the other question is just about, you said to work with a vendor. Yes. Can you say who that vendor is and what you mean by vendor in this context? Yes, so I was referring to the specifics of the legislation and the vendor is the crime research group. Thank you. The current vendor. So this is the data that is required in the legislation, the age, race, and gender of the driver, the reason for the stop, the type of search conducted, the evidence and the outcome of the stop. Meaning what were the consequences for the driver? A warning, a ticket, an arrest or no action taken. So the first thing I wanna talk about is what we see as additional data that needs to be collected to fully answer the questions that have come up. And some of these questions emerge after some initial reports of the data came up. People said, well, maybe you didn't consider this is a reason for why there are racial disparities or maybe that was the reason why there are racial disparities. So part of this is to have a fuller set of variables that can help us understand in particular why these racial disparities are emerging. And all of these data, I think Gary might be able to correct me if I make a mistake, but all of these data are actually currently collected by law enforcement. So the only change to the legislation is to require that they be made publicly available. Yes. The incident number, the ticket number can be sort of used interchangeably. Oh, okay. An incident number would be a case and the ticket has a number on top of this. Okay. Yes. When you use the term law enforcement, are you talking about local PDs and sheriffs as well? Yes, yep. I love that. And it's all consistent across those three different. The same data is required from sheriffs departments, all law enforcement agencies, department of motor vehicles. They collect it all the same way. There are different methods of storage. There's the BALCOR system and spillman. I don't know if there are others that's part of the problem with the data actually and I'll come to that. Yeah. So I'm gonna talk about each of these as briefly as I can, because I don't want to bore you to death, but I want you to understand what the motivation is in some cases. Let me leave the incident numbers and daytime incident numbers until last because it's a little bit more complicated and data for the driver, the same. So one of the things that we like is state of vehicle registration. One of the most common things that we've heard when we presented our data was, well, maybe the disparities are due to out-of-state drivers. I'm not sure that that is an explanation for why there are racial disparities, but there is a perception that it is out-of-state drivers, and in particular out-of-state drivers of color that are bringing in drugs, and that is one of the reasons for which we see these disparities. So the data is already collected. If we have that, we can do a better analysis of what role vehicle registration plays. There's also been a concern about poverty profiling. That is that law enforcement targets low-income people based on the looks of their cars. Gary and I had a conversation about this and in many cases those vehicles are stopped because there are vehicle equipment failures. So I'm not suggesting that there are actual, this poverty profiling is going on, but again, we can do a better job of building trust with the community if we can answer these kinds of questions, and this is very easy straightforward data to report to the public. Another way that racial disparities show up is with the duration of the stop. We find that in other studies in the country, the people of color may be delayed for a much longer period of time with longer questioning and so forth. So we can get data on the duration of the stop. I would help answer that question. The data on the time of the stop are already recorded in the data and maybe the ends time of the stop would that be automatically collected as well? Could be through gradient launch usually. Okay. The officer-level data anonymized is data that is of interest. And in particular, one of the questions that comes up is if there are racial disparities, is it because there are some people, individuals who are more biased than others in the agency and maybe the disparities are due to the behavior of just a few people, or is it generalized throughout the department in which it tells you there are issues around about culture in the department and sort of generalized policies perhaps that are leading to these disparities. So the first time that we got data in 2016, a number of departments provided officer-level data to us anonymized and we were able to look at that and the results are quite interesting and I think are important. Again, I think it's important to understand what the sort of the percentage of people that are over-stopping or over-searching relative to others in the department. I think it is a very sensitive question, but other agencies do provide this data and in particular North Carolina, for example, provides individual officer data and the book that I recommended, I think you made passed on suspect citizens by Frank Baumgartner and his co-authors gives his whole chapter analysis of officer data. So does that mean that the officers are assigned a number or something? So they don't know who they are, but like Gary would know who they are. That's right. Okay. That's right. And some agencies already in Vermont use those data, again, as an internal tool for the department to you have as an officer who has a very high arrest rate, for example, one racial group compared to another and as compared to others in the department is an opportunity for a conversation, right? Why, you know, what's going on with you? Maybe it's the time of day you control. Maybe it's your beat, but maybe it's some other issues. So it is really an important management tool for law enforcement itself, but I think it also seems to cross, you know, sort of narrowing the abyss between the community and law enforcement agency in terms of understanding policing. I have a question. Yes. So is that currently collected around Vermont and all the departments? Every age, every... Yeah, every age produces the data in CRG. Do they present the individual officers? I don't think that's happening anymore. We do it internally. We have officers in the ATON helps us now and now with that list looks like which officers will be spoken to about their data? So just to clear your, so yes, officer level data is being collected in departments, but it's being done internally. And when you say internally, does that mean not open to the public? Is that what internally means in this context? Yes. And are all of these things, because this is additional data to be reported publicly, are all these things, are you saying that these are things that are currently not publicly public? That's right. All of these things and that they may or may not exist or they all exist and we would like to have them public or some may or may not exist and regardless we want them all public. They all exist and we want them to be required to be reported publicly. Right. So these exist and they're happening right now in Vermont but they're internal so they're not public, made open to the public. For the officer level, most of the other stuff is out there, it just wasn't required before. Yeah, like the traffic, like the vehicle gear but data birth is collected, things like that. Shall we keep going? Got it. All right. Type of contraband is of great interest to us. One of the ways that you can detect racial bias as compared to racial disparities is the difference between racial search rates and racial hit rates. So what we have found and other states have found is that search rates of black and Hispanic drivers tend to be greater than that for whites but that the percentage of those searches that yield contraband are lower for blacks and Hispanics as compared to whites. So there's some evidence of over searching of blacks and Hispanics or under searching of whites possibly. And kind of the thinking about it is that officers over time would recognize that maybe they're using a threshold of evidence that's too low a bar in terms of stopping black and Hispanic drivers because contraband's not being found. And if they're not adjusting their threshold of evidence if you will, if they're not adjusting their policing practice we have to assume that there's some bias involved there. So that's why the search rate and contraband rate are important in analyzing the data and trying to figure out what's causing the disparities. So in Vermont, in other states and North Carolina is one of them but in other states they will identify broad categories of the type of contraband. That for me here's the dilemma. There's a lot of contraband that just results in a warning. It might be somebody with an open container or a 16 year old with a pack of cigarettes for example. Those aren't really the driving factors in disparate search rates in terms of what police officers tell us themselves and what they tell us is that the largest concern is around drug trafficking. And so what we want is information on what is the contraband found? Are the hit rates in terms of illegal drugs significantly different between whites versus Hispanics and African Americans? So I wanna just refer to the data that Vermont State Police was kind enough to analyze a few years ago when they looked at the searches for 2016. And in those searches, we looked at all of the cases in which contraband was found and we categorized it into several groups. So stolen goods, cash, very marijuana, civil and criminal quantities and then other hard drugs like cocaine, LSD, opioids and heroin. And one of the interesting findings of that was 100% of the cases in which serious drugs were found were white drivers. There were no black or Hispanic drivers carrying that kind of contraband. Now I'm not saying that that's definitive but I think it's important for us to understand because the discussion publicly is that these disparities are around issues of drug trafficking and so more detailed data on contraband really can help us assess that. And it's not to say also that there might not be drug trafficking happening in other domains but at least in terms of searches on highways this is what we found. So we also think it would be useful to have more data on type of violation. Some agencies have provided type of violation but like incredibly detailed form that you can't manage to summarize it. Most agencies don't provide any type of violation. So I'm talking about a speeding ticket, a seat belt violation, a DUI, so on and so forth. The violations, so there's a reason for the stop, right? The initial reason you stop the vehicle, we have that. But once you stop the vehicle you might find that there are other violations. And so we wanna find out what those are and again it's more information and identifying racial disparities. In that are you also building off, is it already being collected whether it results in a warning versus a citation versus a flash site or on the rest, right? Because that's the discretion I call building to what the office does on a violation. Do we have that? So we do have that. Is that in fact required to be? It's required to be reported. So I didn't mention the things that we're already collecting that there aren't a problem with. So these are really additional categories of data in addition to what's already required by law. Can you just elaborate on already collecting but not a problem with based on who's understanding? You're gonna elaborate what's not a problem? Yeah. I'm gonna get to issues of data quality next and I'll just kind of elucidate many of the problems with the data that's already being collected. Because some categories of data we get but there are real problems of quality in the data and I'll talk a little bit more specifically about that. So the other top three there, the date of time and date of the stop, the date of birth of the driver, the incident numbers, the current, I won't go into, I don't really want to bore you to death because you can read this in detail. The legislation already requires the age of the driver but the date of birth is helpful because it's more specific around the person and here's the problem and it is totally the biggest headache of these data. But if we want this to be a tool that law enforcement can use easily and communities can use easily, we have to find a good solution to this. So the problem is the following, every case or incident, there's a line of data that we get and it'll have the age of the driver, the race, the gender, the reason for the stop, search or not, contraband and so forth and the outcome of the stop. The thing is there can be more than one outcome of the stop. A person can get a warning, they can get two tickets unarrested. To that person, there are gonna be four lines of data and so the problem is we're calling that stop four times if we don't figure out a way to correct that problem and we call it the duplicate problem. And so some agencies, the way that one Burlington, I think in particular, the way that they thought they could solve it is just to report the most serious infraction. So maybe the person was arrested and they deleted the other three lines of data of the two tickets unarrested. That gives you an accurate count of the stop rates but it totally messes up your calculations of tickets and warnings and so on and so forth. So the way we solve this problem is that I have to hire a computer programmer and they basically have to write a computer program and they have to say find every line of data in which there is the same incident number of the same native birth, the same race, the same gender, the same age of the person, all of this identifying information. And then we find that, we delete the other rows of data and we make sure that we count every outcome of the stop. So that is like incredibly boring. But my point being is that in order to deal with the duplicates, we need those pieces of information. So I'm gonna just see if you have any questions because then I'd like to go on and talk about a few more things. So I changed the slide too quickly but I do, in the back of this, I'm gonna point you to it in a few minutes but not right now, a North Carolina traffic stop form. And so although you might think this is a lot of data to collect and it's not easy to do on the current forms, I wanna just give you an example of a form that is actually pretty comprehensive and captures almost all of this data and that can be done, I think, pretty easily. So we need the extra data but really the biggest problems are with the quality of the data, the fact that the data is not reported in a timely manner. There is, we think there's some possibility that officers are not recording stops so we don't have a complete record of all stops and I think I may have mentioned they're missing data. So let me just start with the missing data. First of all, race is the most important category in this data set and the data that was submitted by for example, I don't wanna call out agencies here because I don't want no shame in the game because these new efforts always have these bumps in the road and I wanna just put it out there that many of the small agencies don't have the resources to have a clean data set to go back to officers and fill in the blanks and so on and so forth. So it's a problem and I'm not blaming the agencies themselves. So I'm not finding it right away but in the data that we got in 2016 as the county Sheriff's Department for example, at 17% of the stops were missing the race of the driver. Many of the other agencies had a lot of missing data on the race of the driver. In Vermont, given racial shares of the population, even 1% missing data can skew your data. So 17% is just beyond the pale. And so this is true with many other indicators. I just looked at a data set yesterday that had just been posted and something like 20% of the observations on search whether search had happened or not are missing. So the problem of missing data is widespread and I think that the experience of Vermont State Police tells us that that can actually be solved. Vermont State Police has more resources to do it and I'm gonna just let Gary talk about that when we get to a discussion because it's not that it's not time consuming to solve it, but it can be solved. The problem of the data, yes. So in Vermont, the officers are still based on the perceived race, correct? That's right, yeah. Is there the why it's not being tracked? I'm wondering if the confusion is they're not wanting to guess somebody's race wrong or has there been discussions of why that data isn't being collected as much as it should be collected? I'm gonna speculate, but I think that Gary talks more frequently with one enforcement, perhaps you do as well. I think there are a few things. I think initially it was definitely there's discomfort, right? Most white people in particular, there's discomfort with identifying race and talking about race. So I think that's part of it. I think also that not all agencies have bought into this effort. They don't necessarily recognize the importance of it. And so it gets overlooked, for example. I think those are probably the two most important reasons. Vermont State of the Lease, I can recall with the percentage of mid stops that had missing race in the first year, but I think you're down to like 0.2% or maybe even zero. Yeah, 0.2, and we usually see it now just for commercial or vehicle stops where they go into the truck, goes into the way station and take it as issue to the company. And then the officer is failing to recognize the driver's race data because he's concerned about taking it to the company. So that's what you see, and that's about 50 tickets a year in that range. We'll kick it back if I had some point, but we have set up a system where if it comes to a point in the audit where it isn't captured or automatically it's kicked back to Jupiter and Philadelphia. How frequently are those like overseeing? Like so is it on daily, weekly, monthly basis? So if I'm an officer and I write a ticket on the first, is there somebody going through those tickets to make sure the correct information is collected? For us it's on an on a quarterly basis. On a quarterly basis, and that is so every three months. So a lot, and in- That's just us though, that's not across the state. And in terms of reporting, is the reporting once a year? Once a year. So that's my next topic. In terms of the data being submitted and reported. So when the data was due in September of 2016, a good half of all agencies did not report their data on time. And to date, six agencies still have not reported their 2016 data. Several agencies are still missing their 2017 data. At least I'm talking about what's posted on the Prime Research Group website. We have written to these agents, some agencies and asked for their data because the data is posted with a long, long, long lag on the Prime Research Group website. So 2017 data didn't really become available until maybe sometime this summer. And I was looking at it in spring and it still hadn't been posted. There's no 2018 data posted. Vermont State Police in Burlington have made their data public but on their own websites. So this long lag. So back to your question about why is the legislation not working? If there's such a long lag, the data can't serve its purpose of informing law enforcement. And when it's so far in the past, it's very hard for the community to really understand the relevance of the data. So timeliness is really fundamentally important. And I'm gonna, as I said, I'm gonna show you some data sites but many states require the data to be reported more frequently and to be posted in a very short period of time. I'm gonna suggest you a way for us to do that. Part of the issue is that local agencies just don't have the resources or the skilled personnel to do this but there is a way around it. That was gonna be my question. Is there real, are there barriers that exist here and can you tell us what those are? Yes, I mean, I'm telling you all the problems but I'm gonna tell you the recommendations too. So I have a question. So Gary, you said that there is follow up quarterly. So how, like, how do you, how would you follow, or how do you follow up? Like, what does that look like, quarterly? Yeah, so the person who does it does, for us, she does it on overtime. So it's outside of our regular duties and she's commuting the programs inside of our internal computer system, Spillman system, where she does a radiologue of every single traffic stop. She starts there and that's her second column is to see if there's actually an incident ticket number there. So if there's a call, the officer makes a call of traffic stop and the next column where it doesn't have a ticket number, there's a warning or some type of marketing, that creates a red flag for this to be kicked by the officer to say, hey, where is this information? Next door is what the stop is if there was a search. So she creates these columns and if there's an arrest and if there's duplicates. So then she starts to see if there's duplicates. All that will then get kicked back to the officer when they audit. And then the start of this process is we had to retrain the supervisors and the admin people that are actually entering this information is. So the admin people now should be also looking as that ticket moves from the trooper to their supervisor to the admin person. There should be these checks and they've all had to be trained on what that looks like. So that's why it's reduced the error rate to a point to understand. And you said the ticket gets kicked back to the trooper if information is missing. If information is missing. So if that happens though, my question is if it's happening quarterly, how do I know? Do I make an assumption? Do I guess? Like if, let's say race is missing from that. It's three months past. I pulled over this person on the highway. I probably pulled over dozens or hundreds of other people in the last three months. And how am I figuring out what the race of that person is? Video, every crossing of one of our stops is on video. Okay, thank you. I was like, I was really curious about that. So, I mean, so for clarification, so the officer says, I don't know where he says, you keep video for how long though. Right now, that's a big problem, we keep it forever. Which is a big, big issue on why we don't have all the cameras yet. Because that was a data storm, we're just going to know that's a cost. And so the last one, failure to report a stop. I've had numerous people contact me over the last couple of years who've told me they've been stopped by the police and they've not gotten a piece of paper that records that stop. And the, so that somehow, we need somehow to ensure that every single stop is being recorded, even if no action is taken. And I, you know, I mean, I think it's possible perhaps to give every person a piece of paper, including something that says no action taken. But there is some concern that some stops are not being recorded. And again, it distorts the results and it distorts the confidence in the results if we know that some people, and the people that have contacted me have been people of color who've said that they have not received any kind of piece of paper. So they're not sure that their stop is actually being recorded. So I want to talk a little bit more detailed about quality and consistency in data because this is really where the biggest problem is. So many of you asked about the data that's required by law. Some of the data that is required by law is just not reported. And so for example, you're supposed to record the outcome of the stop. So again, no action taken, warning ticket or an arrest. Some agencies are only reporting ticket or warning and they were ignoring the arrest. Some are simply not reporting contraband or not reporting search rates or not reporting a variety of other indicators. And there is really no mechanism for local law enforcement agencies to be held accountable for their missing data or their failure to report the data as required by law. And that really, I'm gonna suggest to you what we're thinking about that, but that has to be corrected because absent that, the data simply have serious quality problems. It is if you're trying to measure whether there are racial disparities in traffic stops but you don't have, I'm sorry, in searches, but you have some agencies that are failing even to record that or only partially record it. We just don't have an accurate picture of what is going on. And there is a suspicion in the community of color that the missing data are, you know, that may be intentional in the part of the police. I've seen nothing that suggests that is true. But again, I just want to encourage you to think about the data collection process as the community trust building exercise. So the follow up with agencies, so there's no, so currently the data is reported to the criminal justice training council and to the crime research group. There does not seem to be any effort at that level to go back to the agencies and say, hey, data is due, you're six months overdue or three months overdue, or you didn't report all of these categories of data. So that is, there is an accountability mechanism in the way that this is structured right now that really needs to be changed so that some state entity has the authority to require law enforcement agencies to report their data. In North Carolina, this is done, I believe, through the AG's office. But in any case, one of the ways that they incentivize data to show up on time is that state grants are withheld for law enforcement agencies that don't submit their data on time or don't submit it. So absent, you know, a strong commitment on the part of all law enforcement and so forth, really there needs to be some mechanism that requires that the data are submitted and all of it is submitted. One of the things that happened in 2016 is that we got a lot of data of the categories that I just described to you that was not required by law, but people did a data dump from their data systems. And now it's happened, and I'm not sure where this is happening, but now they're working to the letter of the law. They used to provide date of birth, now they don't provide it. They used to provide more detailed information on contraband or officers, not provided at all. And they are actually also refusing, some agencies are refusing to provide incident numbers. It's a very innocuous piece of data because it's not on the statute. So the statute really needs to be revised to make sure that these really harmless, non-controversial pieces of data are reported. The, I don't know if I said it here, but the other issue is that the statute requires that the data be made publicly available. So it shouldn't be available just through the crime research group and its website. We have written to law enforcement agencies and they have refused to give us their data saying that it's at the crime research group. So clarifying the statute would be very helpful to making sure that law enforcement understands who needs, who the data should be accessible to. There, I mentioned there's no quality control in the data, so we could have a case in which it says, for example, that there is a contraband found, but then it says no search. There are many, many, many discrepancies in the data and so there needs to be some quality control. I was just looking at a record just yesterday and an agency, which I don't recall and it's not really a significant, but they had four lines of data because it was the same incident, same case, but there was a ticket, ticket, ticket and an arrest. Now there's a category that says reason for the stop. The reason for the stop should have been the same for all four categories, but it was different. So again, there is just inaccuracies either entering the data or reporting the data. I mentioned this one and when we were looking at the crime research the other day, another colleague looking at the data found that two separate agencies had the identical data set. So some mix up in posting the data, not really sure what it is. I think I mentioned there are hundreds of duplicates in the 2017 data, literally, hundreds of duplicates that can't be solved. And I think maybe most importantly, if there's a single thing that could be done which it seemed that the statute provided for was that the data should all be coded consistently. You use the same code, if a ticket is T for everybody, a ticket is T and I'll just show you, I think I have the slide here. We found 45 codes for the race of the driver. They're really only five racial groups. So we found eight codes for Native American. Is this here for all of our law enforcement agencies? So some agencies might report it as Native American. Some might just report I, some might report M. These are the all variations we found. This is the single most important thing to solve in order to make it easy for everybody to analyze the data. It otherwise takes a lot of time to clean the data so that you can analyze it. So based on all of that, we just are some of our thinking. I wanna just say that I'm on the outside of state government and you all maybe have a much better sense of inner workings but I wanna just represent to you what I've seen other states do that have higher quality data and greater accessibility of data and just suggest a proposal from all. I think it's really fundamentally important that this shift to a state agency that the entire responsibility for these data is shifted to a state agency. I think that AG's office is probably best situated and that's because this AG's office or any state agency entity has the ability to communicate with law enforcement and to make certain demands on law enforcement that for example, CRG as a vendor may not be able to do. I don't think that the data report, the data should be outsourced. It should be the product of state government and the state should be compiling a report, an annual report every year that summarizes the data for each agency as well as the state as a whole. And again, I'm gonna show you some websites of other states that do it that way. There's another issue with the frequency of the data. So North Carolina requires that the data be submitted, I believe it is monthly and the AG's office is required to post it within one month. Now here's the benefit of doing this. Many small agencies don't have the ability to analyze their data themselves. It is much easier for one person, especially if the data is consistently coded for one person in the AG's office to get these data and to analyze these reports and get them back out to law enforcement itself within a month as well as the community in a month. The other possibilities that it can be done twice a year, I think twice a year is probably the minimum. What is happening right now is there's no, there's no date that the legislature requires that the data be reported. So there's a long, long lag and there doesn't seem any mechanism to incentivize agencies to report their data in any kind of time and manner. I wanted to say something else about that. Let's see what I wanted to say. Have any questions for me to be in? Yeah. I'm surprised to get the recommendation or that it's been done and handled inside state governments, specifically AGO, because it seems like the Office of Direction where you really want to ensure impartiality. The second question is North Carolina the only example of the majority of states who do this, do the AGO, is there a non-profit or some kind of independent stuff? The second part of that is the receiver of the data is it generally the same as also this people responsible for analyzing it and then yet generating reports. So that's three parts where you've also built in biases and sort of exacerbating internal problems. So with regard, so first question is excellent one. The way the original statute read and what should continue is that the data also be made available to the public, the raw data, right? It's consistently coded. It's literally a data set that you can download and send in a nanosecond. Then the state could also analyze the data. It seems to me that the state should not be outsourcing its responsibility to look at the data and report on the data and it should be doing it in a prescribed format. Right now Vermont State Police has a consistent way of reporting its annual reports but no other agency reports its data except Burlington Police Department and the state does not have its own report and when you do see reports, for example, Burlington it changes every year. So we should be clear what is that we wanna see in the report and annually produce the same report so that we can analyze trends over time. At the same time that data should be publicly available for independent analysts to look at the data. So that was the point that I wanted to make was that the report really should be a standardized report. I think you should bring in members of the community that are concerned about this issue to get their input on it and reach some agreement about what an annual report would look like so that everybody's needs for information are met. So this was the same thing here that I said that the data should be reported very frequently and if you look at your the handout, on the very last page, what you see is the Vermont State Police report and this is a good example of an annual report. You might wanna write some narrative with it but this is with some modifications, I think there's some additional things that could be done with this but by and large this just standardized format that if everybody used it would meet the demand for data and is really straightforward and easy to interpret for the community, easy for law enforcement to interpret and so forth. And so if the state does continue to use an outside vendor, again, I think that vendor should be required to produce a standardized report that again, that is something that should be agreed upon what it should look like and that should be reported but I also think that there should be in the statute a mechanism to evaluate the vendor, how is the vendor doing? It's currently, right now as I said, we have really significant problems in terms of the quality of the data, the consistency, the timeliness and so forth and I'm not suggesting that that is the vendor's fault but there is no accountability mechanism in the statute the way it is structured right now. So I wanted to show you what North Carolina is doing. I have a couple of other websites up there. We'll see if I should show them to you or not but there are footnotes in here that tell you where to look for them. So this is what North Carolina has on its state website and you can, anybody can query the data. So I could do a statewide report or I could ask to each individual agency, Durham, Fayetteville, Asheville and so on and so forth and notice that this is for 2019 so they already have July data posted. So that's the timeliness with, I think with which you want to do the data and why it should, the data collection and cleaning and posting should all be within the same agency with the same entity because it makes it much easier to do this within a very short period of time. How does North Carolina deal with the... That's a good question. I have not asked them how they've dealt with that. It's actually a really good question. I probably could talk to them and ask them. And so then again here, so this is just, this is search rates by race and gender, I'm sorry, the race and gender of the driver and let's see if I have the next page. This is the report. So when I just hit the submit button, this is the report. So literally within a half a second you can have a report of any one of the indicators here. And did you say that North Carolina, the attorney general office, where all of this is taking place? I am not sure if it's the attorney general's office in many states that it is and I just have to look at where the website is from, it could be the Department of Transportation. I'm just curious about the structure behind all of this because I think for us it's really important to understand that there's a structure and people and resources behind all of that. Right, right. I feel like that's going to be a really important part of our conversation. Right, right, sure. I think that, so it does take resources. I've had this conversation with Gary many times. That's why Vermont State Police can do the jobs that it has done and why many of the Sheriff's departments in particular have very weak data, for example. It is going to be much more cost effective to do it in one place. And once the data is standardized and we figure out the duplicate problem, it is not time consuming to do this. So, I'm not at any of that point. I'm just saying that it's going to require something that doesn't exist right now. Right, right. So this is the Missouri Attorney General's office. So, they report their, so this is on the Attorney General's website and you'll notice that you can just click over here and get the report for every year. It's a standardized report and 2018 is already up. We don't even have 2018 data posted yet in Vermont. So, I think there's a way that other states that have done this to make this process much more efficient. And this is an example. They report a 14 pages long and it starts out with these key indicators and then they write their analysis of this. So, again, it doesn't have to be a long report. And as long as it's a standardized format, you can track what's happening over time. So, if you look at their data, you'll see that they have some of the similar patterns that we have in Vermont. The numbers are slightly different, but you have differential search rates, contraven rates, arrest rates, and they calculate what is called the disparity index, which is something that is very easy to do. So, for example, the disparity index of 1.776 for blacks means that blacks are stopped at a rate that is 176% greater than their share of the driving population. And I guess I don't need to show you that, the Vermont State Police. So, let me just talk there. That's what I wanted to say about the traffic stop data. I don't know if there's any questions. So, let me just talk briefly about the, yes, go ahead. I just want to have clarifications. So, you used in your slideshow the words quality control and the other words that are used for that is what you're really saying is that there's no oversight to collect the data and no accountability. So, that's what's making the quality of the product that we're trying to produce. That's fine. Just one thing before I just tell you what's in the packet is the, this is the ticket that drivers get in North Carolina. So, it's on two pages. They, you know, they do collect more data. I wanted just to show you the format for this that isn't really onerous. They collect data on the race of the passenger searched, for example, that we don't collect and some other categories. They indicate the categories of contraband and so on and so forth. So, just as an example of what other state is doing to give you an idea of how it's done. So, I'm gonna just say a couple of things about use of force data. Traffic enforcement is the most frequent contact that citizens have with the police. So, it's a good place to look to ask the question about whether there are racial disparities. Use of force is also an important area. And the recent events in Burlington that I'm sure you all heard about really point to I think the importance for the community to understand what's going on in terms of use of force. I've seen two use of force reports in Vermont. The Vermont State Police has one and Burlington Police Department produced one for 2016. And the data are interesting. So, in Burlington, for example, blacks are roughly 5.5 to 6% of the Burlington population. They are 18% of the people on whom force is used. So, the disparity is actually wider when you look at use of force as compared to traffic stops. They also did another study, and I'm not suggesting it, but they did a study on arraignments. And they sent an officer to court for all of the arraignments. And again, you saw racial disparity about the same magnitude. Blacks were roughly 6% of the population, but they were 17% of the people charged. So, whether that's coming from law enforcement or prosecutors, we don't know, but it is a step in the process of the sequencing within the criminal justice system. And there's a great interest in understanding where the racial disparities are in this chain of events. Is it at every stage? Is it just with law enforcement? Is it just with prosecutors charging, and so on and so forth? So, here's some data on use of force. Can I also clarify a question about that? My understanding is that in the general public, people think that officers actually make that decision of whether they get to go through the court system or not. And my understanding that they don't, it's actually the prosecution of the state. So, I'm just wondering when you say that statement, that discretion within that. I just wonder if you could tease it out more because you're like, whether it's the officer, whether it's the prosecution, but technically only the prosecution is the ones who are going forward with making the charge. So, what's often been said is that there's bias in putting together that report or that narrative or whatever than which the prosecution then looks into and then formulates their own thoughts around that that then makes the own charges. Is that what you're saying, or is there something more to what you're saying around what you just said? Yeah, that's a really good question. I was thinking about this in when I saw the Burlington data. My understanding is that the police will, for example, they may make a decision whether to stop somebody and arrest them, for example, and prosecutor may, so they have charged them in a certain sense, right? They've identified an offense, whether the prosecutor may or may not go forward with that, but it does start with law enforcement, right? And I actually don't know where the discretion lies all of the time. I think that's part of the puzzle for us is to understand where the discretion is. And part of the issue is that we end up with these disparities and where is the problem, right? So there's discussion around the fact that blacks are overrepresented in prison in Vermont, but the question is where in the process did that happen? So if we have data for every stage, I think we can do a better job of figuring out where inadvertent policies are causing the problem or where the situation is, where the problem is situated. So these are some examples of use of forced data that are collected in other parts of the country. And I won't say too much more about that, but that was what we would recommend that all law enforcement be required to report to the state. And I would say that you would want to maybe not do it monthly, unlike the traffic stop data, maybe once every six months, for example. You don't think you want it to be delayed too long because too far out into the future, you don't have the context in which the events were happening. But again, I think the data would be beneficial for law enforcement to report them to a central state agency, whoever that is, that would provide oversight and that agency would post these data as well. And this last data, I thought I would put it here, I've not really, I commented on this bill when it was coming out, but it is the bill that was advanced last year, and I'm really just repeating that here, that if you all are writing a report that talks about legislation needed for data collection, then these categories provided by these various entities, Vermont Judiciary, Commission of Public Safety, the state's attorneys, and Department of Corrections could be all kinds of data that could help us in that process. I was asked this past year to do look at racial disparities in sentencing, for example, and the data that we were able to get from the crime research group which I think comes from state's attorney's offices was just entirely inadequate to be able to answer that question. So to the extent we wanna be able to answer these questions, these are the kinds of data that we need done. Yes, any other questions? Yes. Yes. How does the juvenile system fit into this? Are these people 18 years older, or is everybody mixed up the same, or are their differential systems parallel to each other? So that's, what does this, how does this really represent? Well, I think it's the entire, right? Tire people in the main population, tire data set on charging and prosecutions and male conditions and so forth. So you probably maybe wanna disaggregate it by juvenile versus adult. And I think that would be, again, I think it would, insofar as there's a willingness to go forward with this, it would be probably useful to consult with various groups to see what, you know, that make sure that we do this one time to request the data when we have covered everything. So the reason why I ask that is because I'm wondering if there'd be additional data that's not necessarily spoke about for juveniles, then there will be finesse, and that's why. Yeah, I mean there's the parallel juvenile justice system. Right. And DCF, so, well, I think, Karen, maybe you can speak to the kind of numbers that the language doesn't actually work. And so I actually am curious whether this doesn't include juvenile data, because obviously with the arrest piece, but we don't sentence kids. You don't see pre-trial release. Court diversion obviously makes sense. But you know, the juvenile justice, the OGDP, so JDPA, so the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, which has now been renamed, requires that we track data. I was actually just looking this up across nine different decision points, and I only know off the top of my head five of them, so that it would include the arrest and the diversion, but it's also gonna be the rates of prosecution and agitation, et cetera. So I think it's a really good question. I was actually looking at that and thinking that you don't have kids represented in H-284 differently, and that I think it would be easy enough to add it. So I think we'll want to, and if we could make that line up, actually with the same data points that we're already collecting and required to, not that we couldn't go above that, but if we could make that alignment, it actually would be with the federal statute as well. But I think one of the things, this doesn't really get at, which I think is really relevant for youth, would also be what happens in school. The school discipline, this is where I was going. Discipline data. Yeah, it's actually, one of the things that we were curious about was how many kids, we're actually looking into this right now, how many kids have been placed at Woodside the last year who also had a suspension. We don't know that right now. We're gonna have to, I mean, the numbers are small enough that we can just do a hand count, but that's something that we've been curious about. Well, it might be an opportunity to request that data again, so there was a bill a couple of years ago that would have required schools to collect and report school suspension data, and it didn't pass. So it might be useful actually to include that in here as well. Are you aware in other states like Missouri, North Carolina, that at the same stick in the adult commode process, having applied a similar data collection and analysis of it in the juvenile justice room? I'm not, I don't have much knowledge of the juvenile justice area, yeah. Well, I had up here, but I don't think I need to show that you guys have more work to do, but the websites of other states are listed in the footnotes to this and you can peruse them just to get some examples of other states with handling this. That's all I got. Thank you. Would you mind just clicking to the other slide while people are talking because the one that was before that, this one, I was into it tonight and left me too soon. Thank you. Go ahead, continue. I'll send that what you sent me because it has to put that up there, you know? Yes, I'll send you the finalized document. Sure, and I'll send it back to everybody. I remember the question I had. I was about this. So, when the, so this is the officer's justification of use of force. Is that based on experience, opinion, or is that lined up with law or policies within their own departments? How, what's the basis of a justification or what is used or does it cross the spectrum of how it's used, where it can be, hey, that's just my opinion of what I did today versus like this is I use this because it aligns with this policy in our department or this law. So I use either that terminology or try to align it with that. Yeah, that's a good question. And I have seen, so for example, the Burlington is data, it's not raw data. We can't get access to it. They just produce their own report. But the one data set I have seen of raw data is for a large city in Texas. And we, I got the detailed reports for something like 300 cases of use of force and the officer typically identified, it was a description, it wasn't policy. It was that the offender had a gun. The offender was driving his vehicle towards me. The offender was reaching for his waistband or was gesturing. And so that kind of data can be analyzed by categorizing the different types of justification from most serious to least serious. And one of the things that we found in that analysis just to give some more information is that the overwhelmingly people against whom use force was used who were unarmed were people of color in this particular city. And so it just gives you a little bit more insight on what's happening with use of force. But it is typically the incident report that the officer writes up in a case of use of force. Now this is Texas. I don't know about Vermont and how each individual agency does it. But my assumption is that there's always a report. I mean, there could be, I don't know. Oh, okay. I don't know. Yeah. There could be, I don't know what other agencies do. We have a very detailed, there's the case that's generated and then we have a report for just the use of force which is quite lengthy. It's about 15 pages long. Right. So I'll let that out. Meaning there's a template that's 15 pages that you have to fill out when a use of force claim is. A template that is filled out for every use of force. And so that might be much more detailed than is necessary for the public. For example, the names aren't necessary. I think you'd probably wanna keep that anonymous. But what I'm actually suggesting I said collected but actually maybe what this should say is be required to be reported publicly. Yes. And some agencies may not collect it yet. So they would have to collect it in order to be able to report it. Some agencies may have it and I actually don't have much information on that. Do we in Vermont agencies have this? That's what I'm saying. I know Burlington does and Vermont State Police do not know about other agencies. So Vermont State Police does. Yes. When I look at each 284, I feel like it's gonna be plagued by some of the same data quality and consistency problems that you've seen with the current statutes from data collection. So it's actually not gonna be a very useful tool for any sort of real analysis of race disparities or socioeconomic disparities or substance abuse mental health disparities. So do you have any recommendations to improve each 284 that would actually offer some consistency from the beginning of the system to the end of the system? So we have, we're collecting, we're comparing apples to apples, and we're just having some consistency from all the agencies that are involved in each 284. I actually don't have, I have much more detailed knowledge of police data. I would say all of you that are at the table from corrections and so on and so forth know the internal workings better. It's not even clear to me how this data gets funneled, why the crime research group has almost no data. I just, I don't know those inner workings enough to be able to say what the problem is. Yeah, I mean, my problem though is like, each 284, we can look at it as a group if we'd like, but just say the state's journey is you collect place of residence. Police you collect it to, but place of residence, for instance, when we looked at that for the incarceration rates of people of color. And the definition, you're basically asking every agency to come up with their own definition. So that's, that is what, that's a really good point. And you're pointing to a flaw of the original statute that may not have had enough precision. And so that each 284 probably should be reworked to be much more clear about the categories of data. I don't know if it's best to have that specificity in the statute, or to identify the entity that is responsible for aggregating this data, and have them make that determination and hold various, you know, institutions. That's more along the lines of the recognition. I think this panel should make is to have an outside agency. We want, I mean, we want certain questions answered. Do we have, where in the chain of the criminal justice system are these disparities or implicit biases creeping in? So we know the questions that we want to ask, or maybe we can formulate the questions. But we don't know. I mean, I think it would take, you know, PhDs and experts, people like you and your colleagues to actually formulate the data systems that fit or the data collection points and they would fit to answer those questions. I do think it needs a little bit more detail. I agree with you. We've had that discussion seven meetings ago. You had that, I don't know. I remember. I believe you. We had that discussion where everybody was talking about how standardization also worked in against the data that particular agencies would need for themselves in order to make the kinds of changes and racial disparities that we're hoping for. But that was a big discussion. It was a tension. I'm not the only member of that, right? No, I remember it too. And there've been a lot of discussions about data here and then all of us are within the realms of our own positions involved in different discussions about data. At the Agency of Human Services, where I work, we're in a lot of conversations about, just within our own agency, how can we share data between departments? And the complexities that exist even when departments want to share information with each other and how we do that. So I've learned a lot over the past year about all the things that, not that I have the answers, but just how hard it really is, which makes me, I mean, I agree with what Pepper was just saying, that I don't really think that we should put a proposal together that says these are the data points that should be collected and recorded, but there should be some discussion and maybe we could talk about how we identify the system and how we go through and identify with the barriers of collecting and aggregating the data that already exists, because that's always what ends up being the problem. And acknowledging that there's a tension there. Yeah, because a lot of this information, as you know, exists, some of it doesn't, but the issue is getting it all together, right? And without having to make different departments completely change their data, some have data collection systems, some don't. Right, but the ones that you do probably can't change that system very easily. Yeah. Well, thanks a lot. You're very welcome. Thank you. You're a standard. I know, it's wonderful. Yeah, you're welcome. My head's worrying. No. No, I'm sorry. I'd love to have that. You've been in love with it. Oh, no, I didn't. It's all morning. I don't know. It's all morning. It's what I do. It wasn't an argument, so it used to be like, oh, well, who would want it? Feel free to stay, Stephanie, if you'd like. I mean, please. I would like to get out and teach it all day, so. Oh, God, I guess. I'll wait for you to go. OK, I have some comments that I want to put forth that was sort of, I think, framed where I hope it will, where we need to go. Some of this is housekeeping. Some of it is not. The minutes contain some talk about crossovers between various groups that are working on social justice within the state. Susanna and I had been in contact. And I was hoping to go to the most recent meaning of the racial equity advisory panel, but it wasn't possible because of money schedule. And she told me, like, 48 hours before the meeting, there was no way. I want to throw out that we may want to make that an actual position for somebody on this group that's not necessarily me, because I may not always have time. But somebody who is on this body, who attends the meetings of the other given bodies, that that may be something we want to do given that we've already identified that we want to work cross over. It's not really for a discussion now, since we have a lot else to do, but it's an idea going forward. Please give it some thought. The panel may or may not be comfortable with the chair taking on that responsibility, but I think that that's something that should be discussed. So, Tony, in the meantime, while we're shelving out for future discussion, would you share with the group when you learn that these meetings are being scheduled and held as a public? Sure. As soon as I know. As soon as you decide as a group. Yeah, I know. Everyone's so busy. She told me she would get back to me ASAP about the next meeting, because I said I can't come to this one. Let me know about the next. She said I'll get back to you immediately, and she's so busy. I'm imagining her life right now is like a living hell. But, yes, thank you. I will get that out as soon as I possibly can. So the meetings are our consistent day? They're not a consistent day. They're not like us. No, they're not as organism. Yeah. I'm sure we'll be able to do it, right? We have to do it together. The second point, we are asked by Act 54 to get feedback on our draft report, final report, whatever report. From the Vermont chapter of the ACLU, I wanted you all to know that I forwarded a copy of the drafts to James. I'm gonna get his last name wrong. I wanna say Lyle. Am I right? God damn. And I'll be in touch with him. In fact, got an email back from him about two hours ago saying, can we meet sometime this week in Montpelier and talk about it? So I will do that, because I really enjoy drawing into Montpelier. I gave testimony on Friday with the Joint Judicial Oversight Committee, did I get that? I just laid it just as oversight. Dear Lord, okay, what she said. Yes. It was, I'm so glad I'm not a politician. Senator Sears is the chair of it. It was wonderful. Was asked about, it was a very interesting meeting in some ways. There were all these sort of questions. What are the reasons for things? And I always loved that because I'm like, huh, I wanted to sort of get by not in the business of coming up with reasons. We're coming up with recommendations. Please stop asking me about that. But I was very happy and well-behaved and didn't say that. So there was like a question about why there were two people of color out of 10 at Woodside. I don't know. I mean, are any of us really clear on that? I mean, so I kind of responded by saying we're certainly aware of the discrepancies. I said, but that we were focused not merely on reasons, but upon solutions to racial disparities as the act asks. I'm learning this politics stuff. Excellent. Did anyone else from this committee or commission join you on that? I wasn't aware that that was happening. I don't know if I missed the email to the group. David Cher was there. Pepper, you were there for a different reason. Judge Greerson was there for a different reason. That's, you were there. That's right. For a different reason. But in this part of our group, I didn't know you were giving testimony or a check-in. Yeah. As a request for future similar calls, would you let us know that there's a new one coming? I am sorry. And then what are your planning to do just to share? Sure. So what would you share? What would you share? Sure. Yeah, absolutely. It was my mistake. I just got busy. Sorry. So the best part is we have a due date. Or maybe that's not. At the attorney general's forum, the last one on the 25th of July represented a burden had mentioned November. And indeed, Senator Sear said November 13, which is a Wednesday. And the day after our November meeting, the 12th being the second Tuesday of the month, that leaves us nine and a half weeks, including this week. That may seem like a lot of time. But if I may say delicately, it is not really, given the history of us, a lot of time. And so I would suggest that the commentary that we have now really has to focus at this point, if we're going to meet that, upon actual recommendations for the report of November 13th. As I say that, I like the organism that we've manifested up to this point. But it has to come to some kind of closure, I think, because otherwise the report's never going to get finished. We've been at this particular version of it for over and a half. It obviously can't stop completely. But the deeply freewheeling discussions that we had back in, say, February can't continue at that level, I don't think. What we say largely has to be something that we can write down and submit, sort of like what Stephanie Siglina was just putting forth. We need to put recommendations around this ABC and so on. I'm a little confused, but that's not an issue. That can always sound so condemnatory. And I don't really mean it that way. My understanding was that the bullet points that we created some months ago were used to come up with a very rough draft upon which we would work or, indeed, research those to cast aside. My sense that the time to make that decision was last month, which is when I also first floated that November due date that was given to me by Representative Burdett. When that happened, what then happened quite organically is that we came up with a new round of bullet points, which would, we hope, lead to recommendations for this month. My personal sense, and I think I can speak for David to some extent too, since we were both sitting last week in White River Junction at Tucker box, was that that really didn't happen. Not that nobody did anything, and it's not a question of nobody doing anything. I think it's a question of things either move in a direction that feels right or they don't. I don't think that people are, I mean, I'm not principle here. So I'm looking at what now looks like two drafts, and I think that's, I'm not sure what to do with them. I was hoping to get direction for you all one day, but I'm not that last week, but I wasn't feeling that, frankly. So if the new bullet points are to be plugged into the extant draft, I'm hoping that someone will take up that task. I'm not a lawyer, and I can't do that really without an extraordinarily fumbling arrogance. And I just, you deserve better than that. The report deserves better than that. The legislature deserves better than that. My job is to facilitate this process, and I can't do that though without some clarity or horribly authoritarianism, which I'd rather not do. To that end, I suggest, and this is a suggestion, going back to the first draft, filling that out, and doing it relatively quickly, because as I say, we have not a lot of time if we're sticking at nine and a half weeks. I would that suggest that someone take on the task of plugging in Rebecca's suggestions into that draft in order to make it more precise and detailed. The other issue that we have, and that still is there as far as I can figure out, is there is an enormous lack on the juvenile justice system, and that is really making me uncomfortable. We really gotta do, that's gotta get beefed up. Just, and then the only other thing I need to, well, the other thing about making that draft more precise and detailed, again, that requires some legal expertise, and I am capable of creating black holes, but I can't do that. I do have limits in terms of my skillsets. To make the writing process clear, I certainly think that that's my responsibility, and I continue to feel that way. I certainly have responsibilities outside of the panel that make that difficult, just so you know, because God is so helpful to me, I'm creating the out of town teaching in Durham between the 6th of November and the morning of the 12th of November, our next meeting, meeting like, I'm getting in my car at Bradley that afternoon and driving directly wherever the meeting is that night. So our writing has to be done a little bit earlier than that you may think. I'm sorry that there was no negotiation with those dates, but as you all are probably aware, academic semesters are dictated by divine fiat. So that's what I wanted to say to start off what leads into a discussion about the draft, or drafts, go. Well, one thing that concerns me about both drafts is that we have a very specific legislative mandate in the statute that we have to answer specific questions. We do. There's three in particular that they say shall be included in the report. And we haven't really, neither one of those two drafts that we have, the one that we kind of was the amalgamation of a year of conversation and then year of draft deals with those one, two, three. So how we deal with that, I mean, we should definitely have that as, cover our bases and answer those three questions. And then as far as the other issues that have been brought up in those two drafts, it's a lot for the legislature to take in. It's a lot for you given an hour in front of the Joint Justice Oversight to describe, it basically starts with bail reform, goes to electronic monitoring, talks about data collection, talks about the resources that are needed. It's a big document. And I think Tom Burt, in addition to telling you that he wanted the draft in November, also said, give me like three things that we can do. Right. Let's keep this concise and digestible. So, those are just these thoughts to put out there to start a conversation. Would it make sense to simply go back to those three points in the act, cover them, and God bless? Pepper, what are those three points reminding me at all? So, there's six things that the panel should make recommendations on. The panel should shall review and provide recommendations to address systemic racial disparities in the statewide systems of criminal juvenile justice, including, and then there's six points. The sixth one says, honor before January 15th, 2018, and by any earlier thereafter. So, we already missed that, but you know. How do you institute a public complaint process? Whether or not. We have language through Switzerland. Yeah, that part is we have, I think. Whether and how to prohibit racial profiling, including implementing any associated penalties. And then whether to expand law enforcement, race data, collection practices to include data on non-traffic stops by law enforcement. So, the same points, two and three, is what we've been talking about in the past few days. I don't think we should ignore those. I think our report should touch on all three of those. Okay. Whatever else. And ignore the knowledge that we're not touching on them. Or, right, or at least the knowledge that they exist, whether we incident or not, or law and law. Talk about why we might not answer them now. So, this was, I was hoping very timely. We had to do something about this, about the data. We really, I mean, I'm really glad Stephanie was here tonight. Do, how do we wanna proceed with this? I mean, do we wanna have, do we wanna discuss it further, what she's put forth? Is there stuff here that feels workable? Not from the juvenile justice system, obviously. But I think I really am suggesting at this point, going back and making sure those three are in there. Maybe you're right. He did say, give you three things. If you could be one page, it'd be even better. He did, which, you know, yeah. I know that's not like, people want hell, want ice, want water. Yeah, all right. I do think an executive summary could function at that point. But, you know, so, I thought Stephanie gave us a number of pretty practical suggestions that I thought she was kind of overlaying on H-284, but I actually think that they would strengthen the report. So I do agree that, I mean, her comments about quality control, and I was really intrigued by your question, Sheila, because it seems like it's not, what I was hearing is it was oversight. And also that there was inconsistencies in like the 45 different ways that race was being collected. That was very telling. So I thought that there were some things around quality control, failure to report the data that I thought were good places to start. But also, I think her points about making it publicly available, that's something that our group agrees on. Her point about, they're not being trust in the system, and, you know, she was really talking about law enforcement, but I think it's true of the system, is that there won't be trust if we're not being transparent. So, I don't know to the extent that we can be. Well, and it sounds like that, you know, that there's, her recommendations certainly talk about, you know, what are the problems that exist with the statute right now, as it exists, and also point to, I think some, it's the same fundamental problem that we have every time this comes up, is who's going to do it? And what is the, what is the system? If you, you know, her 45 different ways of looking at race, I mean, I understand that completely, if you're taking different systems that have different drop downs, or you have a system that one person gets to type it in manually, and another person gets to, you know, there's so many nuances around that, that needs to get worked out, and it's not as easy as just saying, collect the data. And I think that's the sort of stuff that gets missed in a lot of these types of legislative actions is the real working of it. And I think that our suggestion needs to include, like really how it's going to work, or a recommendation to further explore how it's going to work. But I'm not sure I know the answer to that. No, I like that. I second that, Mark. I think that was a critical part of the recommendations was not just what was missing, what's wrong with the current data, but how can we make it more transparent so that we can trust it? Whether it becomes the AG's office, which I have my own concerns of, whether or not, you know, how do we do it? But perhaps that level of detail isn't needed at this point, but perhaps more generally, but providing specifics. I think that it was your point that said, who are we to get too much into the detail and you have to defer to the experts. I would show this point. The other aspect of this is expanding, her recommendation, I think ours, or mine certainly, have put forward this route, was expanding data collection requirements to the prosecution. You brought this up earlier about the enormous discretion that the prosecutors have, and right now the laws, the statutes are focused on police, but really for us to understand why when we get into the system, it's the prosecutors, it's the attorneys for the state that I can decide what goes for, what's asked. So we have the model, right, I think I'm like everyone, I couldn't pace it for being on legislation that just passed Connecticut requiring data to be compiled and what type of data and how it's gonna be done. And it just got signed into law by the governor. Hasn't, I don't know when and how much that's going on, but I don't know if they're the best model, I don't know if there's other models out there, but it strikes me that we need to re-find out and just didn't, right, they're ahead of us by a year or two. But I wonder what happened, like, I'm curious about all the conversations that everything that might have happened ahead of time so that there was an understanding that people could actually comply with the law that was passed. Some things that, you know, versus just maybe saying, this is the data that you will now create, sort of magically out of thin air. You know what I mean? My super, very surface understanding of that legislation was that it was not necessarily, I don't know, like maybe you know about the legislation, maybe the Connecticut prosecutor's office was really opposing it and everything else was on board, but it was, it had bipartisan support, it had. But if they really worked at it ahead of time and said, okay, this is what we can do, and this is the system that we're going to put in place and therefore now once it's passed, it's all sort of set up and ready to go. Yeah, it's a set up to fail, it's not putting it on anything. Right, that's the difference. Sub-pepper, we need data, complaint system. What would the other, what? Prohidrational profiling. Rate something around racial privilege. Whether or not a prohibitive racial profiling, including implementing any associated penalties. Okay. So in that category, you know, I like your suggestions, the ones that you were collecting and passed along in the long and raw form, you suggested divergence, expanding the types of offenses, I mean in the stadium, but what qualifies for diversion again? The theory being that it's so long as we shrink the footprint of the types of offenses that go into the criminal system, the people disparately affected by that will also be advantaged by that, right? And so that could be one. I certainly would support that. I think many people I know in government agencies are currently looking at that, expanding what qualifies as diversion. But that said, you know, I went to a conference on juvenile justice and disproportionate minority contact and one of the negative consequences of this is that you had more youth of color than in other states going through diversion. So I think unless you're diverting them from the system period, I think it just creates a wider net and more opportunity for disparity. It's actually kind of challenging around that. So in other states, and this is again around youth justice, Philadelphia actually has a very robust pre-arrest program that the prosecutor and the police, the chief prosecutor and the police, the chief of police have come together on and it's been very successful in curbing some of the really high numbers of disparate rates. They were able to curb those significantly. So I think it's something you have to sort of think about is just to make sure that you're not putting in a net around the diversion necessarily. Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, especially. Well, I was gonna get a detailed comment but I don't think it would be that helpful, so I'm not gonna. I'm still, I'm just, I'm acting like everybody agreed with me. I'm sorry. That was horrible. Then I'm just thinking really, thank you, Pepper. Like bringing it back to those three things and saying, let's do those. Can I ask a question? And this is probably me being too literal but isn't racial profiling a policy? Is this referring to bias policing or bias? Like this is something, I don't mean to be silly here, but in terms of preventing bias is one thing but preventing a policy, I'm just unclear about that and if I'm reading this too literally, I'd love to be educated. You've got it in front of you. I don't have it with me at the moment. It's in a different notebook but I didn't see that as very clearly defined. I always thought racial profiling was actually. It's not okay. Karen, I don't know. President. I was like, I don't know. But it's not so narrow. I mean, is that what your concern is? Is that we're going broader than the statutory mandate? No, I actually was wondering, are we just looking to prevent people having policies around this or are we looking at bias? That's what I'm looking for. Or were they talking about profiling? I'm going to read it as preventing bias. Okay. I'm going to read it in more detail. That was my understanding of it. Okay. That would be fine. Because preventing racial profiling as a policy is. Be realistic. Kind of. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So. My point on this, Dala, I've worked with Stephanie a lot on this and I understand she's going so deep into this. And I guess no one factual model says is that the resources aren't there to begin with how to capture them. So to ask agencies to, they're putting it onto paper that there's no training, there's very limited training on how to capture it at the front. So the junk hand is continually over and over and over again because the agencies don't have the resources to even start at the beginning of this process. So then it gets dumped into this well where no one is really looking at it other than sort of pick and choose of agencies. And then it, so I think we should be even pretty basic. My opinion is we should be very basic in having to deal with this stuff every day and how we're putting it out is that it's a huge amount of work to deal with, to look at it and to figure it out, to clean it and make sure it's right and not have duplicates and to ask already to go even further. And we're doing that because we've gotten there. But think of an agency that has five officers there. They need the resources. They just simply need the resources now to get there because that's not even, they're just not gonna get there. So I think we can expand, but we need to really just, I couldn't basically say that there needs to be some type of funding put in place where this is all taken care of right here. That's the step off point. To get to all of this other stuff is just gonna be so far down the line for so many agencies because they're not even trained to do it. So we're not, because we're not, they're not complying with what's happening right now because they can't. I'm not really hearing that it's, there may be some unwillingness, but what I'm imagining is just the enormity of it all makes it really impossible to do. So why add a bunch of other requirements that people are gonna be able to meet. So I think my big take on the big bullet was we need to get all of this up front right now of what do we really want this to look like as far as capturing that out there and who is gonna hold it. So that's our revenue. Who do we want to hold it? Should it be an outside entity? Should it be the AG's office? That's a question from the legislative. It doesn't mean we saw it, we kick it to them. Well, we're not supposed to stop it. Right, we kick it to them and say, these are the thoughts, the AG's office and outside entity, CRG doesn't, right now it doesn't appear to be keeping up with what they're supposed to be keeping up with. The criminal justice training council is supposed to be involved in this in some way and they don't have the teeth to enforce it. So those are the front issues right now. Really, should our recommendation be we need to put money where our amount is and adequately resourced that system that holds us accountable, right? Right, yes, it's the answer to that. Yeah, well just to piggyback on that, I think that's actually what Connecticut is. They put together a committee that included all the agencies that you're talking about that would need to figure out how to collect the data that they want that whoever in the interest groups that proposed that bill or the legislators to figure out how to collect that consistently with good quality. One thing about the training issues you brought up, one of my recommendations is that anyone who's seeking to be a manager in a law enforcement agency whether it's from the state police, the local PDs or the sheriffs has to go back and get retrained on how to be a manager of the kind of ground force, the P, the boots on the ground that would include data collection and how to do that appropriately, which is a recommendation that came from someone else but it's something that I heard and thought, well that's a pretty good idea and it turns out the state police already do that and it's just some of the other agencies that don't. So one of those check your points, so the trooper takes that information and they don't do it correctly, that first supervisor should catch it and if they don't catch it and they should be supervising these people to make sure they're catching it and then it gets to the admin clerk that's overseeing where then it gets released to, for us it's another stop with Betty Wheeler that does all this and then we release that out to CRG. So there's these spots where it's other agencies, it's going from officer and out to door. Yeah, when it's my turn, I have another question about that. But I think we should be a little bit more basic and say this is, yeah, we wanna get here but really we don't need to hear yet. One minute. Oh no, you got something. Go ahead. I'm wondering, I don't know quite the parameters of what we wanna write, but it does seem to me that if possibly as would be effective looking forward to have a direct suggestion of a common police report and a common ticket which includes all the parameters that we need to collect data, saying that it would happen. Really, I don't know if everyone uses the same ticket in Vermont, but they do. The ticket not warnings. But at some point, whatever, I know that state police have done a lot of work on this but there are things that we need to include on a ticket and those things are the same thing, probably that a lot of other agencies need to include in their reports. That's to me a real simple starting point for a recommendation. Let's require N.I., native, N.A.V. That's all a huge roadblock in data collection and if we can just suggest commonality of reporting of symbol as a uniform ticket. Uniform ticket, uniform use of force paperwork, really just uniform paperwork and then where it goes, it goes. And I'm not too sure we'll ever be able to effectively suggest where it goes. That's all. Yeah. You have your point, I hear. That's okay. I'm just gonna comment on what everybody's saying because I'm agreeing with pieces of what people are saying that I might have said. So I wanna make sure I'm hearing it right to make sure I'm agreeing with it. So yes, what Stephanie presented as what I consider and this context is low hanging fruit to add those things that already really should be that could be on a template of a ticket and to formalize that I think is something we should be doing moving forward that can be implemented without, that's gonna be work but in the long run moving forward without doing that, knowing we need to do that will be more work in the long run going moving forward. So I do agree with the things that Stephanie suggested specifically around those points that you were talking about required on the ticket should we should discuss and agree to if that's what we agree to that those be implemented. The other thing is around the same data codes talked about needing a program data person or something like that. And that being pretty safe, I think again what you're saying is that we need to formalize all of those things. So we're in that and I would like to agree to that as a group as a panel as well. I would like to agree to as a panel of whether we're asking this stuff to be public or not which is what part of what the presentation a big part of the presentation was about and making sure that we understand in all spheres or in certain spheres what does that mean and including what was called the officer level data being public as well with that distinction as well. Going into resources, my main thing I was gonna bring up was resources. Thank you for what you said because we cannot have this out of conversation if we do not put our money where our mouths are and if we are able to invest in the resources that we needed. You stipulated when I asked you the question that some person in your department outside of over 40 hours and over time quarterly puts this together is what I think I heard you say. She is called the data guy. And she doesn't even have a name right now. And so clearly that's unacceptable. I'm not even gonna come out but I'm just saying you could have said her name instead of saying all those other words and you didn't. And so clearly that is not what we wanna be doing. We heard it in the report that there's not, we've heard there's no oversight. Stephanie said no oversight to collect data and there needs to be accountability and that's what quality control really means. And I'm really wanting to use those words that there's no oversight to collect the data and there's no accountability because when we start using quality control I think it means something different to me. And we need to be really clear what we're talking about right now is that we do not have the resources to have oversight to have accountability for the work that we're trying to do on this panel. And if we're not willing to break down those barriers or whatever fear that is or accountability we think we all have in that and actually say that these are the resources we need to collect data to oversight to have people accountable internally and externally then we're going to be another year and a half at this table having the same conversation. The other thing is around the juvenile justice. I'm very, that's why I brought it up. Very concerned. Thank you for bringing up, aligning that. I would love for all of us to agree that I heard in the last meeting, apologize I wasn't able to be here but I heard I think Rebecca and other people had brought into this space around the juvenile justice system and really wanting to make sure that that is prevalent in this and also understanding that we had a discussion about should we start at the beginning of all of these things and obviously that includes the juvenile justice system and that I think is part of our larger title here on the panel and it's just been left out so, so much as we're having these conversations. So I would like to from this point on keep on recentering our youth because again our conversations keep on coming back to where do these things start and what's the beginning so that's why again I'm appreciative of you talking about schools and so I would like to see specifically us to agree to viewing the schools, the DCF system and the juvenile criminal justice system as a whole and that continuum and making sure that whatever recommendations we make explicitly include those touch points. The other thing is about the outside entity I completely agree with you. If what you were saying is that the AG may not be the best suitable place to be handling this stuff I 100% agree with that that I understand from Stephanie's presentation that it would be easier and more efficient and more less costly to have it done in state and I'm still confused of really who really does that when you say the AG I'm not really sure who really is doing that because I don't think the AG is doing it. Well that's why I asked that question. So I'm confused that, like that is not okay and clearly there are complaints or issues or concerns with the AG office as a whole whether it's him or the person holds that position or people who work with them so that is not something I would want to as a person on the panel would absolutely block. It would like to come up with more creative ways of really addressing what we've all said here is that we need an outside agency or we've all said that we need oversight and accountability and I've heard us all I think agree that internally biases are there can be there and are playing into that and so I feel if we continue to do it inside regardless of the benefits from that then again we are perpetuating exactly with the last year and a half we've said we didn't want to do so would like to have an agreement with this panel of how we feel about that and be firm on whether we are inside or outside entity and then just in terms of how we're planning the thank you for bringing that in pepper to the three demands from the legislature and I'm just sort of wondering because people or it sounds like people are really nervous of how much to put in the report what not to the report in the port and all these different things and so I just want to lean in and push back on we get to the side where we give people and I understand people want things that are simple and short and just concise and clear and the work that we're doing here is none of those things and so for us to think that we can and have to produce something like that to me once again falls into that white supremacist culture that I've been talking about here on this panel and so I don't want to fall into that again so I agree with a suggestion of what we do we can make it the executive summary but I do not think that we should be leaving out information that is useful not only to our legislators but to the public of the work of what we're doing and what the needs and how we're seeing things and I think that we can formulate it in a way that gives an executive summary for those people who want the cheat sheet the quick one-on-one the cliff notes or whatever you want to call it but that we have it all in there and it's comprehensive and a way that I'm looking at potentially designing that not me personally just throwing out a vision is like I'm not signing up to do it in the moment that really clear I know that is once to start with like to have an executive summary but also have parts where we're talking about strengthening so we have a subject area where we take in what Stephanie said we take in what we've been saying on this the expertise from the panel and these are the areas we want to strengthen then the next subject can be the new areas things we know that are new just like Stephanie presented us where they knew and then really going into the systemic issues which might mean creating smart goals or a strategic plan or a backwards time plan or something like that to where we understand that in the next year of that legislative body you're not gonna get all these things done but we need the top three like some of the people around the panel have discussed that these are the top three that we would like you to focus on and address right now but over the next three years or two more years of us being on this panel and how long it is this that we will keep adding keep strengthening keep in a relationship but keep supporting on the rest of that plan that we submit. That's awesome, there you go. Can I move? Can I make a motion? Am I allowed? I can't remember. Cause it's like you do. A little half is made so I thought I would like make a motion. My motion would be to keep the draft to fill it in with these three points that Pepper has brought out. To create an executive summary. We then have all this information that Sheila has just enumerated that we've actually already worked out for 18 months that we may be repeating in two years cause it may not have come to pass and I'm thinking it might have not. And now we just go in that direction. Can I amend your motion? Please. Adding to it that we've identified numbers and views of a subcommittee to run with that. Recognizing that any one of us at all. It's too much for one person to take that draft on and have a draft of something like that for the next meeting. I second your amendment. All in favor of that. Aye. All opposed. All abstaining. Good. Next point. Who's working on data? Okay. Comment on that. Sure. We have pretty broad consensus about data being a key part. I don't think we're going to be able to nor should we really try to figure out all the details. We could try to do that and we would not be able to process this legislation. So I think my point there is just that I think we can give pretty high level recommendations about data. Some of which we'll not be able to do in the next year or even three years. But it still will hopefully raise the profile of the issue. Like even the funding. Exactly. That's huge. Right? Then we'll try it in the next two years. We can get in the fund rates as well. We bring it back. That's huge. It might actually have funding. Or even like using state police as a model. Like why don't we have a statewide central person who does what the overtime person does for the state police. And like goes through every department's reports quarterly. Anyway, that's just. David, you have so much free time. I think you would be a part of it. My point being, I think we can put forward some stuff that's pretty high level. It doesn't have to delve into more controversial stuff because we won't decide that. Anyway. And I think we actually have pretty broad consensus on the highest level. So let's, let's go. I agree with everything David said. I just have a question. I think they talked a lot about CRG and I felt like there was a lot of things said about CRG and about what they do or what they don't do. And I think there are, I think I've said this multiple times or that we hadn't really heard from them. We haven't, have we? No, we haven't. Yeah, I've come, yeah. We've been speaking just now about. About, yeah. Cabinet, did I miss that meeting? Well, Romans come, but I'm wondering if we haven't had like the specific questions about this particular topic. I guess, though, I don't think we, no, I wouldn't want to interrogate them. I wouldn't want to interrogate them. I would just want to understand what's the word. Challenges, thoughts, ideas. I mean, maybe we don't need to have that, but I'm just mildly curious. I'm not sure if we're as broad as we're talking that we actually need to. Yeah, that's fine, all right. I mean, it certainly could be a pretty fruitful and interesting discussion. I'm not sure if we need to get into that. I'm fine. I think it can happen after, actually, right? Okay, so data. We have the complaint system. I don't know why I keep, I keep thinking I forward it to everybody and you know where you get a thing in your head where you're sure you've done it and you really haven't, that's mine? I will do it in the morning. Racial profiling prohibition. That's the other area that needs to be covered. That was not covered in the ground. Who wants to take that on? I have a lot of ideas, as the group knows. I'm happy to take it on. What I'm on to clear about is where this consensus. Yeah, good point. I'm happy to draft up my stuff. I mean, I would not, but as you know. You know what? Do that. Do that and send it out. Send it to me and I'll send it around. Do that. Draft it and we'll figure out where the consensus is. Let's not sit here and like hammer the consensus for the next 45 minutes. It's not gonna happen. So draft it, we'll send it out and we'll get consensus. I also have some ideas for the data. I would be willing, I can't believe I'm such a truly sort of part of that there are other drafts of other sections that are really on it. I'll work primarily on that when you just assign me to them. But if you're working primarily on the data, you know, we can kind of like to see. Yeah, yeah. I think that's great. The area and how much we can work on it. Yeah, well I also think there were some other parts of the, if we're going back to that draft, I recall that there were some other parts of that draft that I'm not sure we all agreed on and that we need to look at that as well. More specifically. My recommendation would be. Present it. I'm not sure. Okay. This draft, like can you be specific about the draft that you're speaking about? The draft, I believe it's the eight on draft. Yeah, the eight on draft. Well, it was the eight on channeling. Yes, yes. I'm sorry. The eight on channeling draft. We all had a discussion. Sheila, you weren't at that meeting, but we all went around the room. We had a lot of discussion about that. So, that all, you have those minutes. That needs to get, and I will, David and I have been thinking about that. I'll get back on that and start putting those in. And then I'll send that out. That's what I'll do. Okay. And, Monica, for what it's worth, what I appreciate about the Tawn's draft of that was I saw it as an attempt to summarize all of the work we've been doing, and to the extent that it'll let the legislature know what we've been doing. Oh, yeah, I. It may not be anything to vote on for a consensus, except that a memory's to call with them. I think there were some things in there that actually might be factually not true, which I think we also want to try to correct. When you all, can I ask you to look at that again and send that to me? Yeah. Is that all? Okay, thank you. I have a question. I'm just wondering for accessibility and correspondence and communication, how people want to communicate. I mean, I know like just having like a Google Doc and having people be able to see people's comments and stuff and people working on it. I'm just wondering what would be more feasible because I know that I'm having trouble like being inundated by, okay, this email, that's what we've submitted this. Now there's this, and this is aligned with this, and then where do we make comments? And then I send them to, and then nobody, it's not centralized for us. So I'm just wondering if we can centralize something in like a Google Doc or something. I feel like I thought that maybe in the last month. Yeah. Because at midnight, I could bomb in and be like, some state agency is not able to do that. But like, I just feel like there's, in the world of the internet, there has got to be some way that we can have a communal environment. I wonder about Dropbox. I've been able to use Dropbox on my computer, but I haven't been able to use Google Docs unless I use my Gmail account. So I think, so I do wonder about Dropbox. Dropbox is an excellent, Dropbox is a way to share the file and then just have a centralized place where it goes. But I think what's tricky about that is you can't like, like in Google Docs, you can see people do all the editing. Yeah, and you can see who's like commented or edited, so it's not as neat that way. Oh. So. Sheila? Are the people able to, like I'm just trying to understand. So that's because you're at like a work email, work computer, work desk. I'm just trying to, or you don't have a Gmail. We're not supposed to use Gmail. We're not supposed to use Gmail. We're not supposed to use our personal accounts to do state work. Sure. Okay, so since you're on the panel of state people, that's where this falls into that parameter. Yes, but I wonder if there's another way to document share. Oh, but it's that Dropbox tomorrow. Okay, Dropbox, but I also wonder, there might be something better, right, that we could use here. Yeah, I don't want to use these laws as a blockage. Yeah, right, I know, it's a little bit counterproductive to the work that we need to do together. And then moving forward, so that means issue right now, but we're not here for a while, so we should figure something out. Okay. Yeah, they're asking. I'm not of your knowledge, but it's fine. Yeah. We can do it. Okay. And you can do it. I mean, I just started using a platform called Slack, but I am very, very like, almost like negative one-on-one on it. So I want to suggest it, because it's a platform in which all of us communicate and do all the things that we're doing, and I'm new at it, and I'm hoping that I would follow through with using the system. And you might have to, it's simple, maybe, depending on who you are. Cool. All right, I will do this. It sounds like we're set. David, we're, I, we need the minutes really soon. Yeah, I do. I mean, this is, this is great. Wow. I don't see anything. You're just going to stay here all night, and be at your home. This is going to be my first hour of work tomorrow. So there's no public commentary. New business, the only thing I want to do is ask, and this is not snarky. It's really not. Wouldn't it be more convenient for everyone if meetings began at 6.30 and went to 8.30? Don't answer now. Think about it. What's we don't need to think about? Okay, don't think about it. Never mind. I thought I'd throw that out there if that would make life simpler for people. Never mind. Table, no. Just a trash. So what's we don't need to know? It would be harder for me as a student. It would be harder as a student. Got it. I just wanted to offer that out there just because I know six has some challenges, it seems. So I just wanted to put that out there as being a possibility. It's, recognizing that it's always going to be hard for someone or more than one person regardless of where we meet, are we going to continue to meet here? No, the reason tonight, there have been three meetings at succession that have needed easels or black boards or tonight suddenly it was, I didn't know where we were meeting a week ago. And then Stephanie says, I need a projector and I need, and I went, oh, and then Anne Walker, lovely, just said the Mac room in Debra Waz has one. So now we won't be meeting here forever. It's just, they have a blackboard. If you ever need a projector though, just, I have one that I can bring if people can just connect their computer to it and there's a wall. So that's a barrier for me now. Thank you. Next meeting is, I can't read it, the 8th of October and this was productive. Anything, yes? I know that we're working on a November 13th deadline but there's a joint Justice Oversight meeting on that day. So really, I'm sure it will be gone by then but it should be submitted at the morning, that morning, or maybe even the night before. Yeah. Were they thinking that they were then going to take testimony on the report that they were going to come back here? Yes, I know. They are going to take testimony that day. They are taking testimony that day. I think that was the point of giving you that deadline. Yes. They want you back. They want me back, yes. Because I'd like drawing in my computer. I just know that I'm going to want to later. You're coming. I'm interested, I would like to know. I am so sorry, I didn't, I don't know what, I think I got so caught up in what, what, what and I just, somebody said be there at this time and they couldn't get my name right and there's that excuse, but I got all caught up. I'm really sorry for that. I'm sorry that I didn't. That was a lack on my side and I'm sorry about that. So I didn't sign up for anything because I think something that you all need is an overview of what we already collect with respect to the juvenile justice system. So I'd like to start by doing an overview of that that we could put into the report. And then if you all look at it and you say, this is missing something, then we can talk about that. And I also wanted to include in that regarding the recommendation about diversion. Diversion is a strategy, but you also just have to be careful when you're using diversion as a strategy for disproportionate minority contact to be sure that you're not widening your net. And I have read some good articles on that and would offer to, I don't know whether it will be countered me at the next meeting, but to give a little more information about that because a lot of you kind of were like, wait a second, aren't you about diversion? So I just wanted to kind of explain that, that there can be some good strategies around that. So, okay, sorry. Anyone want to move to adjourn? Don't move. That's what I meant. I don't know. Great, anyone seconding it? Second. Great, have a nice one. Thank you.