 Welcome, everyone, to the November 2021 meeting of the Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems Advisory Panel. Let us start with introductions. I will go down the list that I have on the side of my screen. Robin. Hello, Robin from Pram Research. Thank you. Tyler. Good evening, everyone. Tyler Allen, Division of Child Welfare Designated Appointee. Great. Chris Loris. Chris. Yes. Chris Loris, Prime Research Group. Thank you. Susanna. Hello. Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Director for the State. Jen Furpo. Hey there, Jen Furpo, Vermont Police Academy. Jeff Jones. Jeff Jones, at large, former BSP. Thank you. Ian. Hello, Ian Loris, Satan's note taker. And I want to tell you all at that on that these notes that we've been getting which are just lovely. Ian's been doing all of that for us for free. And that just, I just want to note that and applaud him. Yes. Thank you. Karen. Karen Gannat, Crime Research Group. Great. Justin Kenney. Hi, everyone. Justin Kenney. I'm the Interim Chief Performance Officer in the Vermont Agency of Administration. Welcome. Loretta Saki. Hi, Loretta Saki from CSG Justice Center. I'm a Policy Analyst and I'm here at Zipham Server. Thank you. David Cher. Hi there, David Cher with the Canvas Control Board. Great. Sheila. Sheila Linton. She, her community, the Root Social Justice Center, appointed by the Attorney General. Great. Thank you. Julio. I'm off camera. Julio Thompson, Attorney General's Office Civil Rights Unit. And Jess, could you please introduce yourself? Hi, everyone. Jessica Brown. She, her former public defender, currently a professor of criminal law at Vermont Law School. And I'm an at-large appointee to the panel. Good to see you. Rebecca. Rebecca Turner from the Office of the Defender General. Thank you. Monica. Hi, everyone. I'm Monica Wieber. I'm with the Department of Corrections. Great. And Judge Zone. Tom Zone, the Chief Superior Judge. Great. Thank you all. And welcome. Glad you're all here this evening. I managed to obviously really mess up the minutes. I mean, the, the agenda, announcements should come next. And then we should do the approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any announcements? I do not. Raise your hand if you do or your virtual hand or whatever. All right. Seeing none, we'll move on. Approval of those minutes that I was raving about. Ian took for us from the meeting on the 12th of October. If there are corrections that need to be made. If there are additions and so on, this is the time to bring that up. They were sent to you a few days ago. Any from anyone. No. Well, then. Oh, hold on. Okay, Jen. Yes. You were not at that meeting. That's true. Would there be like someone would like to make a motion. With regards to the minutes. I'm sorry. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with someone like to second the motion. Thank you. Now everybody who is in favor of approving it, please raise your hands. Yep. And click it on. All right. See it. Thank you. All those opposed. And there is one abstention, but all abstaining. Got it. It is carried the minutes are approved as submitted. Now on to the meat of the meeting as it were, which is the report. You've all had a chance, I would hope at this point to look over it not merely once, but more than once because it's been up for a while. It's been growing. It's been changing. And it grew and changed last night as well. And I don't know how other people felt. I felt very excited by the meeting last night. I thought that a lot of final pieces sort of clicked into place. Compromises that needed to be made were made. And language was tightened up. There were the. Those of you who know the two diagrams at the end. There was some criticism. People adjusted them as need be. And they now look fabulous, I think. But to tell you the story of this report would be a bit difficult. It really is in the report. There was a lot of discussion certainly around fairly theoretical issues like, well, they're not really theoretical. Is this a racial equity body or a social equity body? And you'll note from the report that a lot of scalability was built into this entity, this office. And so, and I'll be open about it. I was really excited about expanding the notion of equity. But both Jeff at one meeting that he attended and Sheila were really quite passionate and spoke very eloquently about reasons not to do that. So we didn't do that. It is about racial equity with an interest that's expressed in the conclusion now in the future, expanding this entity to include more as time goes on and paying quite, well, being quite specific in terms of our attention to our mandate. Other discussions like that were held. The folks that did the hardcore data. So I'm talking about Karen Robin Joy, Witchie, Monica, who am I missing? I know Julia was in on it at one point. Did an enormous lift. Just an enormous and lovely lift. I think that it actually taught me a great deal. I was thrilled. Also, I didn't have to write it. I didn't have to write it. I didn't have to write it. I didn't have to write it. Yeah. Susanna contributed to that as well. Susanna. I am so sorry to have forgotten you. And Monica. I did say Monica. Oh, sorry. Okay. That's okay. I didn't say Susanna. I didn't realize I'm sorry. But at any event it. I'm glad you participated very well. I kind of am on a high around this one. I have to say. Also, because as it stands, I don't have to stay up all night. So I'm delighted. But what needs to happen now. Is there needs to be final comments. And this is the moment for. Real detail. Not detail on the level of copy editing. That I can handle trust me. I don't know how many dissertations I've done that on. That's easy. But I mean details in terms of the thinking. Of the conceptions such. This is not the moment for major rewrite the report. There have been many weeks for this. And so that that's not going to flow very well. I would also suggest. That comments be accompanied by suggestions. For language and such. In the report. And that's really all I have to say. Anybody else who was involved on the working group. Feel free to chime in. Oh boy, everyone's tired. Okay, I get it. No, you just did a great job explaining it. Oh, okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. That's very kind. But seriously, do this is the this is the final moment. Really that we're together. This has to be submitted Monday morning. There are no more meetings of the working group, which I know is going to crush the hearts of the working group. That they get their Monday evenings back. So this is this is really the time to throw in the stuff that you really, really deeply need. And take a moment and look through it if you like and. Make some decisions. Oh, and Jess, we got your title. Yeah, well, so just one quick question that I had you kind of referenced. Obviously the subcommittee met last night. I actually had printed out the most current version of the report prior to last night's meeting. So are were there any substantive like what were the substantive change? Were there a lot of changes last night? You know, I don't want to take a lot of time going through the changes that were made last night. So I can always look at the report later. They were small. There was nothing. My biggest suggestion is page numbers. Ah, yes, thank you. We'll do that. Yes. We'll do page numbers. Thank you. Rebecca, are you you have your hand up to answer, Jess? Yeah, I did. I just wanted to just, you know, and this actually is new even from the people who were there last night in the changes. For those there last night, you'll recall that Susanna and I were going to take a stab at trying to save the diagram of the picture. And maybe that's a place that I could direct folks to say, hey, we could make it sure double check that this captured the subcommittees conception of what we talked about in the relationship and hopefully encapsulates the entirety of the ideas. I think although Monika, I'm going to turn to you because I was hoping you could clarify how your diagram and what parts of your diagram overlap with compliments, supplement this diagram. Okay. So what I'm thinking about and thanks for the suggestion for page numbers. On mine, I think it's showing up as page 15. It's letter D. Do you guys see that? It's very fetching in purple, green, and blue. That's right. Thanks, Susanna, for making it beautiful. So what you see there, if everyone's there page 15, is it page 11? No, I don't know why it's just changed. Can someone share? Oh, yeah. Just share. Oh, boy. I've got it up. I'll share it. Oh, Tyler, thank you. Okay. Thank God we have a techie. There. Thank you, Tyler. So what you'll see here is visually very different from what we have had up all summer as a placeholder. And as we discussed yesterday, really was outdated from where we had arrived, the point we had arrived at by yesterday night in terms of our conception of this. But essentially this new data entity, wherever it lands, we got some indication from representatives Christy and LaLonde on where that might go. But the entity itself, of course, we landed on this name, as Etan said, based on the various feedback office of racial justice statistics. And within that entity, there are two main components shown here being the governing board, a singular governing board. We had initially broken up the board to be separated based on subject matter juvenile justice system board and criminal justice board. We collapse those into a single board. And the membership or suggested membership of that board is written out in more details beforehand in terms of identifying who should be members of it. As well as in the pros, a description of the relationship of the board to the permanent staff. We had initially identified and tried to map the permanent staff numbers and roles from what we learned from the Connecticut folks who had done this a year or two ago, ahead of us. So we had long talked about this as sort of a permanent staff of four. We decided to sort of get rid of being so prescriptive in the numbers and title and went more, and this is what Etan was referencing and all the people we are grateful for pulling out last minute, putting into a more formal fashion the ideas of what we wanted the staff members to be in charge with, but ultimately permanent staff located within subject to the direction of the board. So again, that was a significant relationship decision point in terms of the board to the permanent staff. The permanent staff takes direction from the board, the board being made up of various members, not just government members from various organizations that would be supplying the data, but and not just community members, but we wanted people with specific lived experiences or people who could speak on behalf of the collective of experiences of youth who had been in through the system, adults who had been through the system. And so back to your point, Jess, what's changed from the version from last night? We sort of hammered out and identified a few more new thing that people or organizations that should be part of consideration as to membership of the board. You on the list, Human Rights Commission, there was a general reference to law enforcement and so we talked about unpackaging that and being specific as to what we mean by the specific departments that you see. So you'll see that listed out. And then when we think beyond of what's the relationship with that purple bubble, I think Tyler, there you go. So number four, number five, we unpackaged more. We wanted youths with lived experience as well as the possibility of having a representative of the group of youths who have that experience within the criminal justice. And then number five, we also wanted to be more specific of what we meant by lived experience of individuals in the criminal justice system. Again, specifically experiencing having been supervised by Department of Corrections. And then again, this community stakeholders to be included should include unpackaging. Oh, we added immigrants in the refugee. We added, yeah. Number five, eight Vermont interface group. And then this next category, we talked about sort of the more traditional additional government stakeholders we see and we included Department of Ed recognizing that they had data that our prior reports identified as an important decision, discretion and decision point to collect upon in terms of thinking about how and who gets identified and are these two systems. We recognize it starts as there as well. And then methodologists with substantive expertise was also discussed yesterday and I don't know if that was on your list just but Tyler, if you want to go back to the chart, the diagram, I'll finish out the description. The teal box was hoping to capture all of the various government agencies, organizations that would be the source of the data that would hope to be channel to the entity. So when we see children and families there in that teal box, third one down on the left, we don't mean data from children and families. You mean it from the department of children and family. So that was just want to clarify those are the government. I haven't done that yet. I'm sorry, Rebecca. Yeah, that's fine. And so the concept was here, the permanent staff will be working with these various government entities to get shared agreements, et cetera, to get that data exchange going information. How and how it's collected, integrated, aggregated, analyzed, it was contemplated that it would not be all done by the permanent staff but that there would be separate agreements arrangements, contracts, partnerships set up with external entities specializing in the work. And so some of those organizations are named in that. What color is that? Purple? Blue. Right. It looks like blue to me. Yeah. All right. Blue. Thank you. Anyway, so that's it. Hopefully it's not too rough. So I guess we should confirm whether that is helping or not. How people had been thinking about this. It certainly was what I was thinking about. I'll start off. Anybody else? So it's Julio from Hartford. So I have a question about the government entities. If you scroll back up to the list in the text. Is that far enough, Julio? Right. So in the text there it talks about those groups represented on the board or the governing body. But I don't know that that's captured in the diagram. They are sources of data, but it doesn't include membership on or in the governing body. So I guess that's what I found because, you know, anybody can be, you know, the US DOJ could be a source of data but it's not a member or represented on the governing body. So I just wanted some clarification about that. Julio. It's Rebecca. The list right now that we're looking at is definitely different from the list of the data entities. So I think it was, we had talked about tracking. You know, again, this was, we were guided heavily by the AISP toolkit, which provides some suggestions as to who should be on a governing board period, particularly when we wanted to center and focus racial equities and community voice perspective. So that was sort of the list that comes before this. This list, the AISP toolkit suggested that any governing board include any government actors or any actors period of data, as opposed, that were critical to the success of the project in terms of, as defined critical, I think, a source that owned the data or had control of the data that we, that we, you know, was dependent upon the support from them. And so, so that, so that they, you know, to not have sort of made up obstructionists, right, to not include a key player while we needed to turn to that entity for data that they should be including the board. So we went there. So it's sort of, they're two different concepts. It's, it's not an either or to be on the board or a data source. I don't understand that, but I mean, the diagram. So I think maybe, you know, maybe I didn't understand the initial comment. The idea was that you didn't find it practicable to include in a diagram membership on the governing body in a diagram. Is that right? Okay. That's fair enough. Yes. To put all tiny little circles of all these lists in that, in that board. Yeah. Well, I mean, one graphic alternative would be to have an additional blow up diagram that illustrates what's inside of the cell that's on the screen. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that because the sources of the information are also members of the entity to which they're feeding information or they're represented on the same body. So I thought someone looking at the, the diagram might form the impression that say the defender general's office was outside of the body because on the graph, they are outside of that little circle. And I don't think that's what the text reflects. The text reflects that they're inside the circle, but they are also providing data to others inside the circle. That, that's what I was, that's what I was getting at. I don't know. I like the suggestion of another diagram blowing up, putting the nature of this. Although I see, Susanna, you put the put symbols next to the names, the key at the bottom. Oh, that's true. That would work. Yep. So that, there was a recommendation there by Susanna too. We could either do, you know, sort of a blow up diagram that Ciculio says of the purple top governing board and put in little circles or somehow depict it visually or put symbols next to the names with a key at the bottom. It's like a footnote on board. Sure. Yeah, either one. Yeah. It's such a nice diagram. Let's put symbols at the bottom. Wouldn't that be easier and quicker too? No. I'm all for easier and quick. Sounds good. Are there any sources of data in this teal box that are not also represented within the governing board? I think they're all represented on the board. They're all represented on the board. So to that, you might just put a symbol next to sources of data and then put the footnote as all data sources are also included as, also have representation within the governing board. Excellent. Rather than a bunch of symbols next to each one of them. Right. So then my question then is, how does this diagram compare to the one that Monica built here? Well, it's about different stuff, right? Well, originally it was about different stuff. I think the way that Rebecca and Susanna have changed it, there's a little bit more of a crossover. The original diagram that, as I understood it, that Rebecca made was really talking more about governance, right? And the different governing boards and how the governing boards might interact with the office. And this diagram was, again, just something that I had built for us to have a conversation around how data flows and as we talked a lot about ADS and there was some confusion about ADS to try and help explain that. And I think that now I would imagine that these two diagrams would confuse people and I would suggest that we just have one and I think it's fine to use the one Rebecca and Susanna made. I mean, this one really says, hey, there's data that comes from all these different sources. Some data is also within the ADS portfolio of data. Others are external to it. It all has to flow into one place, magically get blended together and then spit out somewhere. That's what I'm trying to show. But again, I'll go back to what I said yesterday, which is if it's not a helpful diagram, we should definitely take it out. If it's repetitive, we should take it out. I actually like that that's captured in this one. I think that the more detail might be, I don't know, maybe it might confuse people, but to me being able to capture the fact that some of the data sources are within ADS's portfolio, some are not. I don't think that's community I see represented here a little more explicitly. So I don't think I have a preference. And if we wanted to update this one, I would be happy to give it a attempt. But I have to admit as well, Monica, I like it. I think I agree with that. Well, I'd like what Susanna said. I mean, I think it captures some detail, but the other one doesn't. Rebecca? Yeah, you know, I don't feel strongly the other way, but I just had a question, clarification question, Monica, this community legislature researchers picture. Would that fall within the external researchers bubble above? I just forget what the role of that is. So that little, you're talking about the little question mark at the bottom there, was just that you know, we had had conversations. I don't, you know, it's all kind of blending together now. We had had a lot of conversations that, you know, we wanted this office to be able to take questions from various sources and sort of, you know, go through a process of examining these questions and then answering the questions back, which is different than, you know, researchers just wanting to access the data for, you know, just a pure sort of research purpose. So that is the distinction, you know, that those are making, which probably isn't really clear unless you spent every Monday with us from when did we start August till now. So that's what that's trying to show. I appreciate that. That's a new, that's a new angle that's not captured in the earlier diagram. Sort of where is the room for outside engagement with the sender. If I can chime in, sorry, I'm not raising my hand. I don't know how to do that when I'm sharing. As I'm looking at these two charts compared to each other, one seems to be more descriptive of the flow of the work and the other is descriptive of the flow of the data. And so that's how I see the difference. The only area that gets a little confused to me is the question mark with community legislature researchers feels a little bit like the process we're capturing in the other diagram. You know how it's a given, because there's a lot of more kind of bi-directional arrows in the first diagram. The second diagram is showing the linear path of this is the data source. This is the synthesis of data. This is the research to it, how it goes process-wide. So I do see a distinction between the two. I think is what I'm getting at. If people want to keep this and have suggestions, it's easy enough for me to change it. So I'm not opposed to that. I just want to make sure that we don't confuse people with similar charts. And if people are feeling like they're different enough, that's great too. So I'll make a suggestion because I had that same observation about the difference. The second one being very focused on data and data flows and the first being more about the organization of the office. And that first one potentially scrap the data sources piece, expand out the office component and actually put in the members of the governing body, as had been brought up previously, and show the connection between the governing body and the permanent staff as a bigger box. And then also the connection with that and potentially the external stakeholders. So just don't include the data sources essentially and add each individual department that's included. It's just a thought. So are you guys just mulling this over? Or are you thinking that... Oh, this is Rebecca. I think that's an excellent suggestion considering that a friendly amendment suggestion. But I'm... And that would answer sort of the questions that Julio had earlier, which is confusion over the data sources and all. Yeah, and I can take out the... That question mark box on the bottom. Okay. Monica, I would just make sure that I think my data sources, that diagram has Department of Ed. And I'm not sure if there's others that... No, well, yeah. Yeah, so I'll just review the list again. And I did have other entities, but I'll try and make sure that the ones that are listed in the report actually. For those of you who don't know, there's a tiny little databases in that icon. Little databases, just spitting data out. But yeah, I'll do that and I'll update the chart. I'll put you do it in there. Good. Thank you. And Jess, just while you're talking, are we okay on the charts? Because I was going to move to something else, but are we okay with the charts? Yeah. What we're going to... Okay. The other thing I wanted to mention, Jessica, is that I wrote the conclusion. That was not in likely what you copied. Okay. Thanks for letting me know. We don't have to spend a lot of time on it. Okay. I just wanted the basics of what things have been changed, although it seems the discussion about the charts was also very informative. But I can... I'll print out the updated version when I get home. Okay. And the conclusion, I'll just say, was what I promised everyone I was going to do last night, which was when we as a body went to the idea of it being the office of racial justice statistics, I had asked that the conclusion at least note the kind of expansion that would be betokened by calling it social justice. And so this is what I then wrote and put in. I guess everyone's reading it. Let me know when you're done. Is that all right? Okay. It's great. Great. Good. Is there anything else that we need to... I imagine the charts just... You'll get them done. Send them in. We'll put them in. Are there other less graphic, shall we say, issues that people would like to raise? Do folks want me to... I'm sorry. Someone else was speaking. I was just asking if folks want me to keep the screen up or if you would like to see each other. Well, for purposes of the question, I'd like to stay on this paragraph, which is new. So it sounds, Eitan, looking at the third sentence from the last, that the idea is that a other or rather other bodies similar to but not equal to that our depth would be involved in expanding or creating an office of social equity. Is that right? Right. So is the proposal that the legislature would not... The recommendation then isn't that in the future, the legislature should consider expanding this to be an office of social... Or you have social equality. I can't quite read that. Yeah. I wrote equality, yes. So is the idea here that there would be a separate office that this office would be expanded to include the broader scope, like racial and social equality? Expanded. Okay. And is the idea that you would... Our recommendation is that we don't want the legislature involved in creating that you need to have another body to make that recommendation to the legislature. I hear you're scorn, however. I don't know. I'm just thinking about timelines. Like does that mean that realistically... And it may be desirable. I don't know. I don't have a view on it. I'm just thinking when I read that, I thought we're not going to see an office of social equality before 2024 because this doesn't even propose creating a different group but just says there's a hope that some future group that's not proposed will be created at some unknown future and then they will... That just seems like it's putting it farther out than I think at least some members of the RDAP were contemplating. And I just wanted to tee that up for discussion. I don't know whether that's... I really don't know. I'm building it based on what has happened. It's taken the RDAP a while to get to this point. So we work on criminal and juvenile justice systems. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to assume I know what goes on in education, what goes on in housing and welfare, what goes on in other places in which discrimination can be found. So I think this paragraph is sort of trying a bit to be humble and also to recognize that there was an enormous process that this body went through to get to this report and an acknowledgement that that may well need to be replicated. Yeah. So I guess I was... At least the sentence for me wasn't clear that you were looking at other parts of government as opposed to other marginalized groups, in other words. Because of discussion we had yesterday, there were people here. Yes. People who weren't here yesterday. And part of the discussion about the title was a focus on racial groups that have been marginalized versus other marginalized groups. And that's why there was a name change so that the focus of the office would be on race-related statistics. And then in this paragraph you're saying you would expand the racial justice statistics to include other marginalized groups which are not racial groups. Right. You're going to have intersections obviously. But then this next office of social equality, I just don't give from that sentence what you said that it examines things outside criminal or juvenile justice. But because my confusion arises like social equality was like the non... Yesterday it was the non-racial marginalized groups and today it sounds like it is non-criminal justice. I put in a sentence that will make that clear before the RDAAP hopes that other bodies analogous to itself. It would be one small sentence. Yeah, okay. Because 100% like education's a totally different follow-ups. But if you were just saying broadening the lens in criminal and juvenile justice to the other communities you identified earlier, I didn't know why you would need a new committee for that. So I understand. And I'll thank you. Sorry if that took too long. That's okay. Monica. Well, this is on a different topic. So if you want to finish talking about this paragraph, I'm happy to wait. It's a quick little thing though. Willy, are we okay? Yeah, yeah. I'm all done. Thank you. I appreciate that. So Monica. In my attempts to be accurate, of course I've been looking on the 80s website and I just want people to be aware that the agency of education database that I'm going to add to the graph will be within that circle that says it's in the 80s portfolio because they are. So I just want people to know that. Yep. Thank you, Tyler. Great. Anything else? Okay. Then the, what I'm concerned, there are many of you who are proxies who will need to show this to what is the opposite of a proxy? I mean, the real. I mean, you know, the person you're representing, the not simulate from you will need time to do that. Can we discuss a timeline around that? Given that this has to be handed in on Monday, those of you who are proxies should be. We're pondering. Contributing here. Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'll get a copy of the report off of SharePoint and send it and also be clear about my participation in the work group and outlining anything that I think needs to, you know, be brought to their attention and recommend that, you know, they, you know, approve, approve it. And I will or let them know that in the absence of their ability to read it in the timeframe that exists, we're going to submit it. So. Okay, that's what I'll do. Okay. Tyler, I'm picking on you. Yeah, I think the process that Monica just described sounds a lot like what I intend to do tonight and into tomorrow so that, you know, our representative from DCF has some days to process this. If last year is any indicator of how long that was take, I think approval was like a one day process. I remember that. So it was, it was quite quick and I am hopeful that it is the same this year. I feel quite proud of this report and I think that will be, you know, I'll make sure to characterize that as I hand the report off and hopefully that affects the speed at which they look at it. Right. Rebecca? Yeah, no, I think close the business Thursday for me would be a reasonable amount of time. Okay. Then should we, and I'm asking this, we actually the last two reports, we did an electronic ballot. Do you want me to do that again? I can set that up. I actually have enough technical ability to do that. Do not be fearful. That is possible with the help of Anne Walker. That I can do. Shall we do that? I will send that out then at the close of business on Thursday. Sure. Okay. I will do that. May I ask then that with the exception of the few changes that have been discussed here this evening, which is to say with the charts, both of the charts, the sentence that I need to add and the conclusion, the clarification, that there be no further changes. If this is what's going to be handed in, there really can't be anything else. And I want to just make that very clear to everyone. Tyler. So there was the recommendation of page numbers and one other thing that I would. Yeah, I remember that. I got that down. Yeah. There's one other thing I would add. There are a handful of spots just in my scanning over it while we were meeting here today, where it still says office of social justice. So I know that's a copy editing thing, but just putting that out there. That is on my list of things to do between now and Monday morning is completely copy edit. So that you're not going to be submitting a copy edited version of this. I admit that. That is suboptimal. It is also necessary. But I am hoping that the replacement of a comma is not going to. Yeah. Okay. Rebecca. You know, I was just looking at the list of act 65 subcommittee and realize where we were missed and not acknowledge the. The. The assistance of Abby Crocker who's not here. Oh my God. Oh my God. I'm sorry. I want to make sure that everyone is here. It's sort of a moment of making sure we got everybody. Yeah. Sorry. That is awful. I think it's gone through so many. Don't worry. I didn't notice, but thank you, Rebecca. Yeah, thank you, Rebecca. Okay. Anything else. Then I will send out the electronic ballot at the end of Thursday. It'll have a really rapid turnaround folks. So please be aware of that. I will be copy editing. You can assure your non simulate from that I will be to pick that. Page numbers, all that is coming. It's just those are sort of the final strokes. Thank you all. Thank you all. This has been. I mean, I said it yesterday and I got all teary. It was wonderful. It was just a real honor to work on this with everyone. And I, I appreciate everyone's efforts. I appreciate everyone. It's been lovely. What I do want to do is go back to. The agenda at this point. Does anyone have any new business? Okay. Seeing none. You'll see that I wrote next meeting a full panel to be determined. We have historically taken December off. And I'm being really, really disingenuous here. What I really want to say to you all is. For the love of all that is holy. Can we please take December off? This is Loretta. I just, I do want to flag that. We had previously discussed us CSG presenting the racial disparities analysis and sentencing in December. Ah, okay. I had forgotten that. But we will. We'll be reading some things that you'll need to disseminate. Yes, we'll have the PowerPoint. That will provide everyone with, yes. So we will be meeting in December. Maybe we'll take January. I don't know. In any event, we'll be meeting in December. And the date of that meeting. Give me a minute. In any event, we'll be meeting in December. And the date of that meeting. Give me a second. We'll be the 14th. Yeah. Sorry, everyone. There it is. No, that was kind of a buzz kill, wasn't it? Anyway. Ah. Then I believe we've done everything we actually need to do at this moment. And I thank you all. Shall we adjourn? Thank you. Welcome to adjourn. Second. All in favor of going away. Hi. Hi. Jen, did you have a question? Oh, no, you're just saying I, okay. Bye, everybody. Thank you. Well.