 And Amber, I'm not able to open my video yet. Yeah, it's saying the host has stopped it. You cannot start your video because the host has stopped it. Amber, why'd you stop it? Jesse, somebody might be having a bad hair day. No, this might be a real one. I think it's default that way. Oh, there we go. There we go, there we go. Look, I mean, I'm pretty good. Let's get a haircut still with that. I don't know, like, don't... It's being recorded. Let's not say anything crazy, Jesse. Look, my value is authenticity. I'm just keeping it real. It is. That's a client hairstyle, though. He should be proud of that. You look good. Did he pose? I did. Glad to see everybody. Glad to see all the smile. I feel some kind of way by Jesse mentioning bad hair day to somebody who's losing his hair, but it's okay. I didn't mention a bad hair day. Let the record show I did not mention a bad hair day. That was not me. It was, I said it before the camera. Oh, okay, all right. Yes, that's a good public servant. Yeah, but Davey and I are, we're living it. Yes, absolutely. So thank you all for being here. We want to call this task force meeting to order and get spirits as we have already demonstrated. Again, it's such a pleasure to see you. Can't wait till we can actually be in the same space. We want to welcome you to this effort. This is part of good work that's being done across our community. And as we are thinking about how to start this thing, Marsha and I wanted to talk about what brought us to this. Cause you guys had a chance to do that. And I'm not sure that we clearly did that. So we're going to have, I say as part of the welcome and then we'll talk about our values and move forward. But again, we appreciate you being here as task force members, as liaison from our electives and as the community. And so for our community, if we would again, as we have been doing, have a moment of silence for the safety and wellness of our community. Thank you so much. So I'll kick it off. Those that know me know I have a story and or analogy for everything. So I'm going to force myself to just use one. As a retired educator, one of my goals after retirement was to go to grad school and study education policy analysis. And one of the projects I had was to go to the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. And the meeting was in DC. And because it was in DC, we had a plethora of federal agencies there to present to those of us who are working on supporting students who are experiencing homelessness. And my policy beef is the fact that many policies never truly effectively reach the people they were written and normally well attended to reach. And so I stood there and all as I was doing my field study for my class, watching and taking notes as four federal agencies were presenting to us an app that would bring everything together. And the auditorium was full of people who were working directly with homeless students. And after the app presentation, there was not one single question about the app. Every question revolved around the same thing. Why is it that the policies that identify homeless students experiencing homelessness for HUD don't match what we did with an education? In other words, if someone is unsheltered, there is support. If someone is living with their uncle but doesn't have their own home, then I consider homeless under certain regulations. So you have all these siloed agencies whose policies don't all reach the persons. And so having been on the board of education, it was one of my missions to try to reach the people with the policies. And so that type of work has brought me here as far as making sure that at the end of this work, there will be recommendations we hope for policy changes as well as budgets. So I'm excited about that opportunity. I'm excited about all the work that's already happening that we're gonna hear from during the course of our work. And so that's really my passion coming in. I like to make sure that the policies reach the intended recipients of the work. So I'll pass it on to Marcia for her why. Thank you. I just have to say, y'all, it is a joy to co-chair with Spavia Kazan. Thank you for your experience and for your wisdom that you bring to this task force. It's not on the screen, but I'm sitting here next to task force member, Cynthia Fox, glad to have you with us. Glad to be here. Yeah, boy. And I just wanted to let y'all know that this is like a kind of a dream come true, that when Mayor Schull called and asked if I would co-chair, it was like, I've been waiting for that for 30 years. That we are going to start asking the right questions because I think we are asking the wrong questions in the criminal legal system. And I think it is keeping us perpetually unsafe. And the question that we ask is what law was broken? And who break that law and how are we gonna punish that person? And that's what we ask and that's what we do. And so I just want y'all to know that I'm here personally representing my dear friend, Naisha McMillan, who at the tender age of 23 was shot to death in 2018. And I just wonder what we could have done to prevent that. And I just think of her and her family and all the families who have to endure and bury and carry the burden of what I think is our collective violence. And I'm also here representing in honor of Thomas Moore who has been accused of killing Naisha and who today, as of today, we will have spent $96,000 incarcerating him in the Durham jail. And I just asked myself, and I'm sure the family does as well, what if we had spent even a little bit of that money in 2004 when he was sentenced to prison, actually, for killing Johnny Scurlock? So could we have done something differently? So that my friend, Naisha McMillan, who I met when she was a student at the tender age of 13, would be with me today and I will never stop loving her. And I'm also here to represent and to honor my love for Tony Williams, who came home from prison and at the unbelievable age of 25 was shot and killed in Durham and no one was ever arrested. So I'm here representing 50% of Durham families who have lost a loved one to violence who will have to endure a criminal justice system that asks everything except the most important question, which is how do we repair the harm? How do we prevent this from happening? How do we address the harm? Who's been harmed and whose responsibility is it to address that harm? And I'm also here for the 50% of the hundreds and hundreds of Durham families who will never know who killed their loved one because it's not a crime against them. It's a crime against the people of North Carolina. I guess y'all know that, that it is a abstract idea that when there's a crime committed, when people harm one another, it's not a crime against a family or a person, it's a crime against the people of North Carolina. And I know that I joined those families who will never, who's all the phone calls from the police have stopped, who have accepted the fact that they will never know who took their loved one because maybe they weren't the right color, skin, they weren't powerful enough, they weren't rich enough, they weren't connected enough. And you can't help but wonder why was my child so unimportant that we would not find the person responsible who created the greatest tragedy imaginable. So I am so excited and grateful for this task force because we're asking the right questions. We're asking who's been harmed. We're asking what can we do to address the needs of those who have been harmed, including those who we have traditionally just kicked out of the kingdom. Everybody, those who are sitting in our jails, right? Those who are sitting in our prisons and those beloved families who are going to have to endure a lifetime of loss. And so I'm just so excited and I'm so, so honored to be with y'all. And I just want y'all to know that that is where my heart is and that I just, so the values are very important and what we're doing here is just, for me, it's just a dream come true. So thank y'all. And I will pass it back to, oh, would you like to say yes? Please. Hi, everybody. This is my first time being this way. It took a while for me to get here because this is not at all my thing. But my reason for being on this task force is due to my own experiences with mass incarceration as well as domestic violence. And basically my questions to the city and county is if they are trying to do anything to prevent domestic violence or any type of violence in the streets as well as mass incarceration, they should do better things with their income. That can assist people with small incomes so that they will have things to do in this town. Majority of people in this town that were born and raised here have been kicked to the curb and their children, their children's children, therefore they're lacking options to do whatever it is they desire to do as opposed to being in the streets. That along with being homeless due to economics is a problem. So if you don't address those problems, then the rest of the problems are obsolete. And at that point, I'll say, I said, I'm gonna lake them until next time. Thank you, Cynthia. And turn it back to you, Xavier. Thank you so much. Thanks everybody for allowing Cynthia, Marcia and myself to have a moment to just speak to our whys. I said it with gratitude and I believe that gratitude, like faith should be served with action, but since there's no reactions on this particular panel, I'll just have to, with my hand off my heart, I was gonna send something else, but there's no reactions available. We wanna move on to the values. We normally, the last two meetings have shared what values U.S. Task Force members are bringing into this space. And I was challenged by Marcia to try to synthesize what we've said so far. So I will do my best and I'll share this, wherein I believe that of the 25, 26, 27 values that were expressed, that these, that you see here at the bottom of this brick wall that we are building up towards safety and wellness, represent how we stand out and the stance we take toward others, in patience, love and inspiration, in graciousness, compassion, blessedness and respect. And that on that foundation, then we talk about how we stand up for others. First how we, I stance toward others at the bottom, then how we stand up for others and for ourselves with these values that you brought in and then to fill up the wall are the values that for me spoke to how we stand as a community. And obviously, this is just my outlook on what you brought into the space during the first meetings with your values. So we just kind of put them in an aggregate form and I just try to think of a way to present them in a different way. So there's that. I did want to mention again that and it's on your agenda as well, what our mission is. And again, our mission is also strengthened by values. Our mission is to identify and assess community-based safety and wellness services existing and non-existing that address the needs of residents who have been harmed and who have caused harm. So if there's anybody viewing for the first time, I think you got to get sense of what we're here for. I think you got to get sense. So I'll turn it back over to Marsha to talk about our protocols for our meetings moving forward. Okay, thanks. Yeah, this will be the easy part. We're here to make decisions and so we need to think about how we're gonna do it. There's nothing like a few rules to get us going because as we build the roundtables even today, I think we'll be making decisions on what roundtables we want. So I would just like to suggest that when we make decisions at this point, just a simple majority will do, except for when we get to the recommendations to elected officials. When we get to that point, so anything that we vote on that's gonna be to elected officials would be a two thirds. Answer now, we get to vote. Ah, I hope that we can do this with consensus. Does that sound good to everyone? Thumbs up, is that cool? And does that seem reasonable? We can change them. This is just, it is us. Does that sound good, Jennifer? I can't see what you're doing. So I know we chatted about this yesterday. I don't wanna slow down the train with more discussion about the procedure, but I would not be disappointed to see ensconced in our procedure away for people who are genuinely in a position of objection to something that the majority of the task force agrees with, just to ensure that there is satisfaction to be found there, that those voices are able to be lifted up, even if they're in the minority, just because we do come from so many different perspectives and experiences. It might be the one person that disagrees with the rest of us that has the experience we should all be bending to. Absolutely. I'm used to consensus situations, so that sounds beautiful. But in this, since we're here for a very short time to do a big mission, I agree. And I think that that's one thing that needs to be in all of our notes and our roundtables and the work that we do in smaller groups, that if there is, that we reflect the opinions, that both don't reflect everyone's opinion, but it just, if a decision has to be made, that sounds like a good way to do it. And also with the understanding that we've got two very, very skilled folks, Ashene and Jennifer, who have lots of techniques, lots of great ideas on how to facilitate different ways of making decisions. So, but just for the, just for working right now, can we all agree? Is that great? Xavier, G, it was hard for me to see everybody. Does it sound like, does it seem? I agree and just wanna state that, and I'm not sure if the notes are shared out, whether, rather how widely the notes are shared out, but to just kind of piggyback off that, I think giving folks opportunities to say, I have a hard no and this is why, and just including that in the notes. Yes. That's it, right? Yep. Okay. Yeah, and we record the actual votes. Some of them be pretty unanimous, some of them will be different and that'll be really important. And if we decide on a particular specific proposal to say, and this is the, this was the one that was the second most considered or whatever. Perfect. But to Tyler's point, absolutely being, and that that person, that task force member would have the right to say, yes, please identify my name as the person who had the hard no, or just a task force member projected in here. They should be able to decide whether they want to be named or not. Absolutely. Perfect. That sounds great. Dwayne, do you have anything that you'd like to add to this at all? No, I was just considering though, if we could do some polls at some point, but I'm not sure yet. I'm still processing issues of confidentiality and to what extent people want to be open with their votes. Beautiful. That's great. Yes, Xavier had also mentioned polling. Yes. So we've got just multiple, multiple options, but I think that what we all agree is that opinions will be taken, will be in the record. Okay, great. Thanks, Tyler. Thanks, Dwayne. All right, super. So we'll, simple majority for simple things. All right, beautiful. So... Could I ask a couple quick questions? Certainly. So we're doing two thirds rather than simple majority. And what's the idea behind doing two thirds rather than 51%? For recommendations to elected bodies. The idea is like it's a stronger yes. Correct. And so, and that's two thirds of the people present at a given meeting. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Xavier. Great. And then folks in the one third that said dissenting body could name their reason and have that reflected in the notes. Absolutely. Okay, got it. Absolutely. Great. You have a quick question. Certainly. I agree with everything. And we do often, well, I have on passboards, you know, you want the dissenting information to go out there. So I do love that idea. I'm happy that Jennifer lifted it up. I'm trying to figure out because is it, because Madri bought up a great point. Would it be better to do two thirds of who is here or two thirds in the event you have a quorum? I don't know how much of a stickling y'all are for Robert's rules. So that's why I'm asking. And again, I'm a non-voting person. I'm just a liaison. I'm just throwing that out there. See that the cat licks it up. So I don't know which would be better. I don't know which would be better. Like if you had a quorum, because of course, you know, you can, I like, since myself, Bettina, we couldn't vote, you know, but let's just say it was only seven people on here, right? For one given night. Would you hold it until you had a quorum? So those are just things that I just want to throw out because I want it to be successful. And what I would hate is if like some recommendations were made. And I've seen this on other bodies, not here in Durham where, you know, it was a membership of 200 people and only 11 people were there that night. Or example, at a general assembly when they vetoed the governor's budget. You know, nobody, yeah, you're right. Nobody was in the room. Literally nobody, everybody was in the room doing gerrymandering. And they said, y'all gonna call the vote today? So everybody left, call the vote. And they vetoed it. So just thinking about things like that. I'm just, again, now I'm gonna go back to non-voting silence status now. Oh, no, we love it, love it. My experience, there is no voting at all without a quorum. That's my experience. So if there's no quorum, there's no vote to be taken. Thanks, sir. Great, great. Thank y'all for that input. Also, I just want to invite everybody to feel free to make recommendations for the agenda. Xavier and I have sort of, you know, that's been our calling. And we'd just like to enlarge that. So, and to do that, please use, and that's for folks in public too, not just on the task force. You just need to email Community Safety at durhamnc.gov. And it'll come to us and we'll certainly honor your message and your recommendations. So that'll do it for me. And let's talk round tables, Xavier. Yeah, so toward the end of our last meeting, the task force round tables, the terms and terminology. Oh my goodness, it really, to me, became muddy. And I didn't do much to help that. So I brought some help this time. So I have some slides to just try to talk about what that looks like. This is a work in progress. What I'm gonna show you is a slide presentation. When you see a slide that has a light bulb on it that lets you know we're gonna go back into it and edit and make changes and make it a living document. I can't do that whilst in slide mode. So I'm gonna go through the slides first with the understanding that many of them will, many of them will come back in and edit. And I did wanna, I've seen a chat, quorum for this group is more than eight. So once you've reached eight, you've got your quorum. And that's a quorum. Okay. All right, so let me share my screen with the slides. So we're basically talking about coming outside of this large task force and breaking into smaller groups to do the work that we've been assigned to do. And so I consider that being a workflow. One of the terms outlined for us in the bylaws is a community resource panel. You may be familiar with this concept where there are community persons that work for different agencies, whether they be private agencies, government agencies, that have community to help us and talk to us in this work. And so you'll see that name come up again later on in the slide, but you see here some of the agencies that the elected officials have asked to be available to us as a task force for discussion. Two more vocabulary words, forgive me for going to teacher mode here, but I'm just trying to make sure we don't have any confusion. Round table and listening session, having news almost interchangeably up until today. Round table is what I consider and in having one-on-one with many of you, you also consider to be committees. And so for our purposes, they act as committees to gather data from the panels, to gather data from residents interested in this topic. And each round table should focus on evaluating the existing services and practices around that area, identifying gaps and suggesting budget figures whenever those are appropriate and are applicable and recommending a different crisis response related to that area. The listening session could be conducted by the round tables or the full task force as needed. These are expected to be spaces where persons most affected by the criminal legal system may voice their concerns or tell their stories. So for me, this is a larger group for the most part, particularly for persons whose voices are not traditionally heard by decision makers. These listening sessions may also be conducted with members of professional service agencies and organizations. So again, to me, a round table is a committee of this group that invites residents that care about that focus areas, come with them and talk to some of our community resource panels or others that are interested. So the data gathering happens in both sessions, the round tables and the listening sessions. And you'll see more of that in a second. These are the initial round table options. We are starting here, five of these six were already decided for us in the bylaws and we may have renamed some of them. SROs, court system, violence, interruption and disc de-escalation, alternatives to 911 or improvements, mental health crises, gun violence. We will go back through these one by one during our editing process, but these are the six that we are starting with. There may be others once we get into the work. Some of these may actually have recommendations quite soon. Some will have recommendations at the end of our work. But there's no reason we have to wait for 18 months or so to make any recommendations if that round table has gotten to a point where you feel really strong about what you wanna recommend. And you brought that to the task force and we were like, yeah, let's go with it. So this is the workflow that Marsha and I are suggesting that one round table meets with public and private community resource panelists. Again, those that were listed in the previous slide as well as others that you identify as a round table you wanna hear from, not just from the government agencies, but also community organizations. One reason you wanna meet with them is to find out who they think you should listen to for your listening session. So you come in with your own ideas of who you wanna hear from but you also wanna hear what those who are doing the work, who they would think, who they feel you should hear from as well. Two, round table conducts listening sessions with residents most affected. Three, the resource panel data and the listening session data are analyzed and we hope that we will have some assistance with that. And then four, the round table reports at the monthly meeting with the task force. So the round table work is happening in between the monthly sessions. We can revisit these steps as necessary. Once you'll start your round table, this is not strictly prescribed but this is a recommendation to you and we can talk about it at any time. The expected outcome of your round table work is that a recommendation that you can bring back to the task force that the full task force can discuss along with you, vote on and eventually bring as a recommendation to our elected bodies. And again, this work is conducted in between task force meetings. This is the result of some one-on-one conversations that Marsha and I have had with you about where you think you might want to serve with these six. It is, this is a work in progress. We are going to edit it, move it around, whatever it takes. As you see, it's not necessarily balanced. If your name is here more than once, that means you told one of us that a second or third option is a possibility. Some of you said, hey, you can place wherever you like and I'm ready to work. And so this is just a start. And we'll come back to this and fill this out. Keep in mind that we would like to see these round tables also manned by residents who are interested in this topic that also have great information to give and will be a part of your discussions. Let's see what I have here. Okay, so this is, when you were sending a sheet out, I believe last week with guidelines, this is just the same information you've seen before. Those are the things that you are tasked with doing as a committee or round table, evaluating practices of identifying gaps, including budget, if applicable, and recommending a different crisis response. These are some important questions that you may want to start with as you listen to people, as you talk to your community resources. How does the area impact individual safety? How's the area of your round table impact public safety? What interactions take place when there is an intersection, as we talked about before, with these agencies? Who's currently required to respond to the harm? What is their capacity for service? What is their cost for service and from what source? And can sequential intercept mapping be applied to identify points of need and appropriate responses? These again are just suggested questions. Once you get together, you will have a sense of how you want to work as you listen and ask questions. Marcia and I and your task force support staff, Dwayne, Ryan, are accessible through the email address that Marcia mentioned before. This is for your use as well as the public's. And as task force, yeah, sorry, round table conveners, we want you to, you know, let us know when you need help with scheduling, getting the space to actually have a virtual meeting or physical meeting one down the road one day, we hope soon, but not too soon. Translation interpretation services and any note-taking because there is an expectation that there would be note-taking. So that is the end of the lecture. I'm gonna go back now into a live mode where we can do some editing. And so I'm gonna ask a question first. Is there any, and I'm gonna stop sharing so I can see everybody, is there any need to talk about the definitions for the round table, listening session, community resource panels? Anybody have any comment? Ready to move on, I love it. I can just tell you that I saw my name on four of six and I'm not gonna do four. I'm not trying to be an overachiever. Oh, no, no, no, no. Yeah, we're not on that slide yet. I'll just talk about the definitions. We're gonna, as I say, we're gonna work that page until it's perfect. Actually, I actually feel like I could use some help distinguishing the difference between the two. The table and... Yeah. Listening sessions? Yes, please. Sure, absolutely. So let me go back to the document quickly. And as I see it, the round table is not an event as much as it is a committee. Okay. And as a committee, before you have your listening session, in order to be as informed as possible, you're in that listening session, you wanna hear from the community resources and the prior resource panelists. Okay. And so you're going to the sheriff, for instance. You got someone in the schools and hearing from them about your work, about the work we're about to do, you and your committee. And then once you feel that you've gotten a good sense of what they're looking for and you've given them a good sense of what you would like to see happen, you and your round table, your committee, goes out into a larger public venue virtually right now and invite people to come and talk and testify about their experiences, their concerns. So the listening session is somewhat like a town hall that your round table has the freedom to conduct as you see fit. Okay. So the former, I mean, it still feels like, how do we bring in the most voices to the former in order to build on the ladder? You know what I'm saying, right? So we've got some ideas about folks that hold more formal positions that we wanna bring to make decisions about the, and I'm sorry, I'm not even using the names. That's how confused I am right now. But at what point do we bring in voices that are more marginalized to incorporate into the broader town hall-like procedure? Or is that from the very jump from the very beginning? Sorry if I'm further complicating things. That would be in the listening sessions. Okay. In the listening sessions are not necessarily places where you won't have the government officials. If you want them at the listening sessions. Okay. Will. I was gonna say, Zebra, I think it's pretty important for the, somebody from the sheriff's office and the school board, not just as resource panelists, but to be in the listening session to hear from students and parents, somebody from the DA's office to be in the listening session to hear from victims of crime, you know, not just to talk to us behind closed doors and for community people to be able to talk to them when they wouldn't necessarily have a venue to and for those discussions of practical solutions and the details of that to be somewhat incorporated in that listening session as well. Not just the narratives of the problem, but the discussion of the practical solutions. I think that we want that out in the open too. I know we're getting down the road a little bit, but I think that we want to create a context in which people can speak freely. And if you put a sheriff in there, everybody ain't gonna speak freely. So. Thank you. I agree to some extent, maybe a superintendent maybe, but someone in there with a gun and a uniform isn't gonna get the same information that we might get. Cause I've done focus groups. Ms. Denzap, you know, done it for a while. So I think you want to create a situation where people don't feel like someone's staring at them, picking them apart. Could I jump in? Cause I knew somebody was gonna say it. I would also, I would hope that throughout this process, and I've said this to somebody else, there are times as an elected official, we deal with people that strip us down and tear us down, but we still have to meet with them. We still have to be somewhat courageous about it, right? I can't even count. The meeting I had right before this, the people ripped me apart every time. I've never, you know, but I met with them because that's my charge. Even if I wasn't a public servant, you know, I chose this advocacy life, right? Even before I was an elected official. So I know that it's hard. And I know that it seems, it might seem to some people like I'm encouraging you all to go and sit down. But what I would argue, there are just certain things that I might not be able to tell you cause as learned as I am, as much as I read, you might have questions about a department and I cannot splice it, right? So there might be a time where you have to get the best information from somebody who might be from that office. That being said, I would just hope that we could figure out what person that could be because there are lawyers that are at the sheriff's office, there are social workers at the sheriff's office that could probably answer questions better than I could. And you all might have some very real questions. I gave an example of somebody said the other day, I'm trying to be quick. Somebody might have made a statement and said, well, they don't have this there. A lot of times elected officials, we have to go back and get stuff. I don't think you all should have to wait when we could put somebody in a room. The same could be said for somebody who's on the school board. You all might say, well, you know, this school doesn't have this, but if we have that teacher in the room, they can attest to the fact. Oh, no, well, you know, Riverside does have this, but Southern doesn't have this. Xavier, Mr. Casey, you probably knew what was at every school and Bettina's a chair and she does, but these are just things I want you all to think about as you try to do this work. So that's not me saying you have to have somebody in there with a badge and a gun. I would never force that upon anybody in this room because I know that there are some very real, real sensitivities and some very real concerns, but just know it might not be the worst thing to have somebody in that room who can answer the questions that you need in an intelligent way. That's all I'm gonna say. I do one. That I can't, that I might not be able to, but go ahead. I want to do one slight pushback is that I'm no, I know I'm sorry, is that if we want to do a listening session, we shouldn't be there to respond in the first place. In my opinion, we should literally be there to listen, gather the information and then take it back as opposed to, cause people can get defensive. So then it can turn into a back and forth. But I think what you're discussing, like that is needed at many times. There's a problem. People need someone there who has answers, but I think if we're gonna make it a listening session, we should just make it as open as possible and just have it be an open dialogue and discussion that we can then chop up later. You get the transcript. You go through the transcript, you start to identify things that are recurring, like doors and barriers that are continuously mentioned by multiple people. And then you can move that. That's what I think about when I think listening session. Yeah, that makes actually more sense because as you said, that's the kind of thing we can communicate to those people running community organizations and especially the agencies that need to hear those things. But as you rightly say, they haven't had the opportunity to express that or feel intimidated to do it, but this is that open opportunity. As long as we can be clear and maybe in the resource, when we meet with the resource folks to Jesse's point you made at the outset is so much information and data and stories that have been gathered. We don't want to feel like the people who participated in that process, that that was for naught. When the students made their heartfelt views felt on the SROs to start over and, okay, let's start gathering information, but to start out and be clear, this is what we've already know are stories and real problems. And we can build on that, but we want to respect all the effort that was built into gathering all those stories and all that information before we ever got started. And Jesse had his hand up as well, but I do want to mention that I did not mention the meeting with the community resource panels as a closed door meeting. That was not the intent. If that's how it was taken or heard. You invite, your round table invites whoever you want to meet with those persons. Jesse. Yeah, thank you. I want to honor, I think there's not one way to be a round table and there's not one way to coordinate a listening session. And I think we need to work together to consider for each of the round tables. And this is really going back to what Alex's question was to understand the difference between the round tables and the listening sessions. So I know I was confused at 1.2. And it took me about three or four times with Xavier to be like, oh, this is what you mean when you say round table. And so in my mind, a round table is just a committee. It's a committee of task force members, period, right? And so for it, if I, I know I want to serve on the SRO round table. And so I'm thinking about who are the most impacted folks as it relates to the issues of SROs. So I might have a listening session or we might have a listening session with just young people. And to Tyler's point, the sheriff won't be there. Quite frankly, the superintendent wouldn't be there because you want to create a protected space where young people feel a sense of psychological safety and trust that they can say what they need to say that they'll be believed, they'll be heard and we can hear what they actually need to say, right? We might have a completely separate listening session with SROs and with the sheriff, right? Because they are also one of the most impacted people because they are the ones in the role. So we have to be able to have the range to create protected spaces, to be able to hear from all of the impacted groups within the focus of the different round tables, right? And that's just SROs in my mind, right? So I wanna honor the various kinds of ranges that will be needed for each round table. And as we all consider where we offer our gifts and our energies and to Alex's point, who else might activate in the research that we collect and in the processes we kind of work through, we have the community resource panel, which is a list of different people who are already leading and we can be creative and strategic to say, oh, if there is someone who we know is in a great position to offer additional expertise that isn't already listed in the bylaws, there's nothing saying that we can't activate them to be a part of any of those conversations, be it a private meeting with the superintendent, an official listening session or whatever. So I think we have the autonomy, we can give ourselves permission to do what we feel we need to do. We just have to be communicating and thinking critically and creatively so that we set ourselves up for success and we can actually collect the data that we want to. So that's very much where I'm coming from and I don't want us to tie our hands behind our back before we've even begun thinking that we can't do a thing or we have to patrol how someone else does their listening session. I wanna trust that we were all appointed, we are all intelligent, we all have skills and resources and networks that we can activate and if we need help, trust and believe. I hope that you will ask because I will be asking you for help when I feel I need it, right? And so let's have that trust, let's have open lines of communication and let's get this work done, that's me. And so I appreciate that, that the agency in the roundtables is exactly what Jesse just said. And that's my intent, Marsha's intent that you'll know who you need to hear from. You'll have a good sense of how you wanna conduct the roundtables because these are different focus areas, different types of harm, different types of possible intimidation. And once you're working in your passion, you know the scene, you know the spaces that you wanna create to do your work. Yes, Marsha. Thanks. Jesse, you said that the roundtables will be with task force members and others. You know. Yeah, the task will get, the task force members will get together and populate it, you know, and then go for there. And I just wanna reiterate that that support team, that list of public agencies are there, are in those bylaws because that means that they are essentially required to help us. So they're there for us to get what we need. And so we don't even need to do, I mean, you know, we can just, Dwayne will help us with this. We have a need, we will identify that need and where we need to get that information from. And the bylaws in my mind, just make it formally required that we get that information, that they're part of this mission. And in very well, maybe that when you have, then you're listening to sessions, you report back to the full group, a question or discussion in that full group may say, hey, we need to go back out and hear some more. You have that agency. And the only reason I did the flow chart is because there are some people like me like, show me a roadmap, but it's not prescriptive. There are three people who have at some point or another head that hand raised during the discussion. And I wanna make sure if they still have something, a question or comment. One was Wanda, Dr. Boone. And sorry, it took me so long. I'm looking at my participant, your hand. It's okay. So I often find myself in uncomfortable places where people who are parts of institutions in places of power come into a room with people that don't have the same level of power. And so as a facilitator, what I've tried to do is first level the playing field in that when you're in this space, you're not bigger than the other individuals who are in the room. And sometimes that takes a lot of work. So if there's law enforcement, sometimes that have been like this, then I'll point out, you seem uncomfortable. Can you undo yours? So that the young people in the room don't see that body language and feel a certain way and then empower others to have voices heard and interrupting. So the spaces that I have been in have involved individuals who are part of the challenge and those who have never been in a situation where they've been allowed in some of these spaces and rooms. And it can be really powerful when those with power become humble, which has happened many times and even have cried when realizing that their power was shielding them from having a real conversation with people who can possibly be a solution. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you. And I appreciate Tyler's message in the chat mentioning using that hand raised function with the committee at this large. If it's comfortable to do so and it's difficult on the phone especially that if we all agree to use the raise hand function either and I'll be more diligent to watch that. Sam, did you still have something that you wanted to mention? Yeah, I don't know. This is more of like a down the line question. I don't know how we'll be able to do it because of we might be having some listening sessions in person depending on what the guidelines look like and how people are vaccinated in the future. But I wanted to know if there would be like any utility to using some anonymity in the meeting. So making sure that the participants are coming in anonymous and giving their input and asking their questions anonymously because that might free up the conversation so that people will freely share and give their true perspective on things as opposed to kind of shaping it in a way to... I'm trying to figure out the way to work this but confidentiality can help making sure that people speak freely about what they feel on certain topics. I appreciate that. I hadn't thought about that in ways to make that happen but I know that there are. They've been using other town hall situations and other focus group situations. So I wanted to make sure we acknowledge that. Jesse. And Jesse kind of jumping off of what Samuel said. No, I'm not trying to put you on the spot but I feel like you will know this better than I but I know that with some of the different research efforts that the Office on Youth has had, I'm remembering that they had a couple of different anonymous ways that people could call in and provide feedback. So there was a way for their feedback to be collected and submitted without them having to name themselves. Do you remember something like that? Or am I making that up? Yeah, so with our process, we did ask folks to identify. We were sort of trying to collect the, like we were using that information to make sure that we reached our target so we were trying to collect demographic information but it wasn't, so yeah, we asked for folks' names and sort of to self-identify. Yeah, and I would like to just offer a bit like, I think if it was really about the space that we created that made folks feel comfortable to share and just who was in that space, like people got personal and shared things that were like definitely like heavy. So yeah, I don't think it's a nice step to take but I don't, I think if we didn't take that step, it'll also be fine. It's just really about the space. Well yeah, I'm just mindful that there may be groups of folks that we wanna hear from that like they may not, like we may really value and need their feedback but they may not be in a place to be named. And I think Samuel's insight there is key. Like even thinking about like, and this goes back to what council member Javier was talking about in terms of like thinking about folks that don't speak English. Like is there a way to be able to collect that data so someone can just say what they need to say, in Spanish and whatever, and we can do the back end work of getting that translated or like if someone's undocumented, they're not gonna show up at, like there's different dynamics where like folks are already vulnerable and we don't wanna make them more vulnerable while also soliciting their feedback. So I think there are a lot of different ways that we can take it. So I'm just, I appreciate you mentioning that Samuel in terms of like will there be ways in which you make feedback loops anonymous so that we can still listen to people without having to know exactly who those people are so that they're still protected. Like it may not be a physical space that we are protecting, but it's a bit abstract but it's still the same concept of like setting people up for success in that way. Any others on the way we operate, we operate our roundtables, the concerns or comments on that? Okay, so what I'd like to do next is actually look at the definitions and descriptions of the roundtables. The descriptions on the presentation come from the bylaws with some words mything from Marsha and I. Even beyond what we look at today if you feel that you need to redefine the function of the roundtable that you end up on, that's fine. Again, this is something just to give us a sense of starting place and it's not a prescription but I wanted to make sure that we were on the same page on what these roundtables are assigned to do. So going back to the presentation and start with SROs, the language we have here is the existing school resource officers program which places a law enforcement official into every Durham County middle school and high school. This roundtable may also consider how expulsion, suspensions and disciplinary policies affect educational achievement. Okay, any concerns or I'm gonna try to open up my windows so I can see people a little better. So I move on to the next one, court system. In the bylaws it specifically mentions drug court. We wanna kinda look at the entire system as necessary. I'm sorry, Mike, you have a hand, Grace, on SROs. You still mute it, sir. The court system one is a vital one, but it is so huge. I might argue that it is basically split into one that focuses on the front end of when someone enters the criminal justice system for diversion, drug court, et cetera. And one that focuses on the back end, particularly the re-entry process, the probation post punishment. Those are two very large and distinct topics. I think they might be worthy of their own separate. But then again, you can make that argument with some other ones. And then we'll get to the, it's not so much a matter of whether we should have a roundtable on the crisis response on the 911 system clearly, but the timing of that seems important since the new department of community and wellness and safety is already up and running, already considering hiring people to begin to do that very thing. So we'd certainly need to be expeditious about them so we don't come up with recommendations that the cities and this new department are already well underway. Well noted, and we did include language on incarceration, probation and post punishment in that definition. Exactly, I might make an argument that those are worth, that's worth its own separate committee, subcommittee and listening sessions. And it very well may be that that's what you work on, exclusively, knowing that those are ways that you interact with the drug court. So that we're trying to give you as much flexibility, language that gives you the flexibility to craft it as you see fit. We really do. And so again, these are just starting places. Saw another hand, I thought. Okay, maybe not. Balance interruption and de-escalation. We know that Bol City United is doing some work in that area, but they're not the only ones. And you may want to hear from others as well. Training formerly incarcerated residents to intervene in situations of violence to prevent escalation, including a specific domestic violence cohort to focus on domestic violence cases. So this is the broad view. And I'm bringing these up so that when we go to the page where we decide, okay, where am I really gonna serve? Just a reminder of what we're looking for. Just moving on to gun violence. This one that was not in the bylaws, addressing the many ways that gun violence endangers the safety wellness of Durham residents. I think we are well aware of the impact. And we feel, Marcia and I felt that we should also talk about that in the same way we talk about the other sources of harm in places where harm happens. Mental health crises, I think this is directly from the bylaws of new community nonviolence, mental health first aid and de-escalation training program focusing on residents who are most likely to be victims or perpetrators of violence. And then under the 911 alternatives or improvements, as Mike mentioned, there are already, I'm sorry, Dr. Boone, I'll come back to you in a second. There already has already worked now that we have had presentation in the city about the new recommended department that's done a whole lot of work. And we'll talk about that again as well before we finish. And so, but we know that that's quite often the front door to a lot of the issues of safety and wellness. Back to mental health crises, Dr. Boone? Yes, so I'm interested in prevention, not that no one else is, but this seems to be more intervention and how do we insert what we're doing into where we are now. I would like to focus on in terms of mental health and actually everything that I see here in terms of prevention. When I see data that says that 85% of girls that are involved in the juvenile justice system have trauma and stressor related disorders. Then to me, looking at mental health from, I don't, I mean, even when a baby is in a mom's arm, not that she would be violent with a child, but we need some action in terms of how we, as a community, can be more resilient thinking about our trauma and racism as a trauma too, but how do we address mental health that really may influence a lot of the other things that we're seeing on this. Sheet, so, I mean, prevention is my thing and so I'm more concerned about that as well. Thank you. So I've added that we should also address options for prevention as well. Thank you for that. Jennifer. Yeah, I had a similar question and just wanted to expand Dr. Boone's inquiry a little bit more. So I also had, was confused about why we were talking about perpetrators of violence and at Round Table was sensibly for people living with mental health concerns because statistically we know that is not who perpetrated, they like are tens of times more likely to be victims of violence than anything else, but also the title mental health crisis, as was aptly mentioned, is like intervention focused, but the language about kind of mental health for safety, it seems prevention focused. So to the degree that this is, I guess I'm trying to understand if this is not organized around prevention already, how is this different than the 911 alternatives? I'm just, I'm not understanding how those are being conceived differently because a mental health crisis is an urgent emergent situation that requires crisis response, at least as I'm understanding the term. Am I, am I not just understanding the usage of the term in this context or if my wires are getting crossed somewhere? I totally understand what you're saying. If it's a matter of the title, we can just say mental health. I just, I just want, is there concern about the focus of the Round Table? Because we know that the 911 calls is going to talk about that entry point. I think for me, I'm trying to diagnose whether I'm having a content issue or a semantic issue and what you just said makes me think I'm having a semantic issue. And so for that reason, I will close my inquiry and we will see where this news forward. Thank you. Yeah, I do want to, I do want to just dig in and double in, double back on the flexibility within the Round Table to really determine where you want to work. This is the language that was given to us from the elected officials, you know, how we handle this is up to us. So I appreciate you lifting that up. Thank you. Maju. I think there might have been someone ahead of me in line. All right. Jesse. Mine is really quickly and is actually off of what was just said from Jennifer. In the bylaws, the Round Table that is more to do with mental health is about a new community non-violence mental health first aid and de-escalation training program that focuses on residents who are most likely to be victims or perpetrators of violence. That while related feels distinct from a separate Round Table which is a new on-call crisis response which would allow certain calls with police assistance to be handled by other trained professions. So like the mental health crises one listed here I think is more about activating and working with residents and community members who aren't employed who aren't trained professionals but are often as you kind of said the victims and we want to figure out how to prevent that but also hurt people hurt people. And if you're in crisis, right? Like you can also be a victim and a perpetrator at the same time and like being able to hold that compassion so that we're not punishing people for the harm that they've caused when they actually need to receive care, you know it's tough and that feels again related but different related to but different from or different than a new on-call crisis response process so that when people call 911 the crisis responders that are activated are the ones who are in the professional position to actually provide the professional care that's needed. So I think it is semantics and just wanted to clarify that based on what is written in the bylaws to back up what Xavier and Marsha have been doing and thank you for your leadership again y'all we're getting there, we're getting there. And I thank you. Thank you, Jesse. I do want to lift up a comment from Bettina chair of the Board of Education reminding us that these bylaws were created before a lot of this work that's happening currently has been done. I mean, it was a while back when the bylaws were actually crafted and moved from one elected group to the other it took a while. So some of it some of this language is actually almost outdated. There's a lot of work that has been done since these bylaws were crafted. I'm more concerned about the work of the round table getting together, seeing what's actually happening and getting a sense of what else needs to be added to that to the work that's already being done. So please don't feel prescribed by these definitions and descriptions. Mike. Go ahead, Maju. I was gonna back up what Dr. Bloom was saying but you go ahead first. Okay. All right, thank you. I really appreciate the work that's gone into these bylaws that have gotten us these categories and this thinking that's gone into developing the round table model. And I wanted to lift up some words we talked about in the first convening of this body just two sessions ago. We lifted this quote from Mayor Pro Tem Gillian Johnson when she said the safest communities don't have the most cops, they have the most resources. And it's a theme that we discover again and again as we try to address some particular thread of our patterns of violence and patterns of harm and patterns of exploitation is that there are these bigger structural inequity issues that yeah, it's impossible for us to just solve it by moving the small pieces when we're ignoring the gigantic boulders of how resource allocation works around housing, education, health care, food, water, which communities a polluting company comes into that kind of thing. And it was something that struck us when we first saw the draft of the bylaws. Like it was like, we hope we're gonna get to talk about the heart of the matter. And these things are also crucial intervention points but they are downstream intervention points, right? I'm not trying to throw a wrench in the works. I'm trying to figure out is there a way that we can be developing alternatives to these things but I'm really feeling what Dr. Wanda Boone was saying about like where the trauma begins and like that when we systematically underfund the things that we know help people thrive through like a public health lens, that's when we start seeing really massive shifts in outcomes and it's not, and I say this as someone who like makes my living, doing trainings for people, like it's not when we do a really dope workshop with some folks, you know? The dope workshops help us show up better for sure but when we can like fundamentally stabilize the lives of Durham residents in those macroscopic ways, folks are gonna be a lot better equipped to get more out of the workshop. So I guess that's kind of the big picture thought I'm thinking about and I'm not saying this having some proposal or some pushback to offer but just that. Thank you so much. Marsha, do you have any reflections on where we are at this point because we're very, very concerned about starting roundtables without a good sense of how they would function and you haven't said much in a while, it's gonna get your reflections real quick. Yeah, I just wanna make sure, I just wanna ask everybody, what have we forgotten? Is there anything missing? And I also would like to speak to what you just said, Manju. There is the Gestalt. We've got these different roundtables looking at these different, but they're like... Sorry, what does Gestalt mean? Oh, I'm sorry. I was gonna say, I was gonna get there. They're like bricks, like each roundtable is a brick but then you put them together and it's a wall. You can take those bricks and build something and it's something else, right? And that's what I mean by the system. So as we think about these individual issues like looking at those 911, what I thought was so profound about the sequential intercept mapping is that, and that Gudrun pointed out to me so brilliantly, but you can see how you can change one thing and it does in fact change a system. And so I think we do need to look at things with those eyes. And I think also in our recommendations, we can do big recommendations. I mean, I would hope that we would. I would assume that we would. So I just, I appreciate that. I appreciate what you said. And the question again to everybody is, have we left anything? I mean, is there something missing? Okay, can I always add it later? And we can separate. I like the idea of that court, by the way, the court roundtable could be too. You could, you know, incarceration could be its own field of study. So thanks, savior. Yeah, yeah, I just want to make sure this is a productive conversation as we talk about the process for how we do our work, but also a reminder that we're not as constrained as it may feel that the elected bodies during the time that the bylaws were created were working as three separate elected bodies doing something together, which is so wonderful and unusual. And this is, this was what we did at the time. And it's now in our hands. And we have great agency to move in the same, in the direction that we know we want to end up in. I thought that was another handout. Mike, did you have more? Yeah, I think, and I think Monja really helped me think of the way we can acknowledge that. It's not something missing. It's the real base of it all. If we don't address the real sources of trauma and harm that undergird at all, then those, you know, the bricks are out of, shaky found, whatever you want to call it. So if, but to Marsha's good point about, you know, focus when we very first met, even informally, it's anything where people are touching the criminal justice system is a way to kind of think at least the initial purview of this task force. So we approach it with, this is our charge for maybe a phase one, part one of these interventions. But along the way, we're going to, we're going to create, not create a new idea, but just reinforce what we already know that there are real deep issues of investment that are really necessary for the real prevention that you've been talking about. So that we may, you know, in our year or whatever, these are the specific recommendations for these particulars of intervention, but the city and the county, the community need to move on these deeper sources of investment in mental health care, not just mental health crisis intervention in, you know, real health and real housing, et cetera. I mean, we're not charged with, since we're not the city and county commission, we can't do those things, but we can say, these are the deeper issues that have become even more apparent are there and that part two of the task force or someone else has got to deal with. And we're just giving you more evidence of why and that the good interventions and the changes we're going to make are still going to be interventions in a system that is creating harm until we really can address that. But, you know, that's for that part two, but we can, we, I think we want to be emphasizing all those key things we're discovering in the process and not thinking, okay, we're done. Absolutely. So do we feel that we're in a place where we are ready to decide where you want to serve with these round tables? I'm not sure that we are. Can I ask a question or add an idea? I guess I'm wondering, so if we were to divide ourselves among these six round tables, we would have very small round tables, which might be a good thing. It might be what you're going for. And or it seems like some of these are programs that are already in motion or initiatives that are like seeking direct input from this body as soon as possible. And other ones are at different places with less like pressing nature. And we have 24 months together, six more months if we come to a two thirds majority asking for more time. So I guess I'm saying we could possibly identify that we want to have these six round tables and then choose three to focus on as a whole body this year and then commit that next year will be. So by the end of this year, we're coming up with three awesome recommendations to bring to the three elected bodies. The next year, we'll work on the next set. Another option if we wanna like fill out the task force more. And I'm saying this in recognition as I look around the folks at this table, it's some of the most busy, engaged, hardworking fam I know. And like, I know that you're at this table because you're doing amazing stuff in other parts of Durham simultaneously and you're attending to your families and you're surviving the pandemic. So if it feels like a more reasonable load rather than having Jesse be on four committees. Yeah, just an option. Yeah, again, Jesse was never intended to be on four committees. That's right, that's right. Okay, but the point is, and I'm feeling the same thing, Manju. I'm feeling that we need, Marsha and I need to do a little more work on the committee structures and personnel because we just basically had one-on-one talks and people were just kind of being, we're being aspiration about where they would like to serve but even the structure of the committees can be revisited. We have one more meeting this, the June meeting of course is coming up in two weeks. So we can firm all of that up during that meeting. I'm very fine with that. I mean, that feels like where this was going. Anyway, as far as how this was looking. We did want to make sure, are you okay with that? Is everybody okay with that? As far as making the assignments in our next meeting and doing some more work on which ones we should prioritize and possibly do less than six to start off with. Okay, get some thumbs up on that. We did weren't to hear from Dwayne on some of the ways that he would, and his office would support the work of the roundtables. So give the floor over to you for a few minutes. So just to make sure that I didn't miss out anything, I have what I've written here and so here we go. So the city's committed to supporting the important work of this task force. One way the city is demonstrating this commitment is by providing staffing to support the work of this task force. My role is to serve as a lead staff support for the city. That means that my full-time responsibility is to be resourced to the chairs as well as to this body to help the work move forward. In that role, some of the ways I'm available to support the task force will include supporting the co-chairs in organizing, coordinating and operationalizing the work of this group, conducting research in response to questions of the task force, which include research of policy areas, local programs or national program of interest to this group and preparing members summarizing this work. Conducting interviews and focus groups of interest to the task force and synthesizing insights emerging from this qualitative work. Collecting and analyzing data requested at the task force, organizing meetings and roundtables at the request of the task force and ensuring roundtables are adequately supported, identifying and coordinating other resources and partners who can support this work. Supporting the task force as you develop proposals and helping to guide these recommendations through internal processes necessary for them to come before elected bodies. Acting as an impartial and authentic listener who follows the lead of the task force and acting as a custodian or guardian for this important group. We're time-premise supporting a planning process for 911 calls for service pilots that will be discussed in a future meeting and that one will include Ryan Smith. The city is dedicating additional staff to support this work. And thanks to Amber, Ryan and others who are behind the scenes helping each week to support your important work. And I will work closer with them, but my position is meant to be a full-term resource for this group. And to be clear, I'm not here to advance an agenda set by the city. I'm not here to advance any agenda whatsoever. You are driving this process and resource available to the task force to help you succeed in this charge. And with that said, I also want to make it clear that I look forward to meeting each of you. And if you have any availability to chat remotely with me, I'd be more than happy to set up time to speak with you individually, but I'd love to speak with each of you. My email address for the city is my first name, dot my last name at DurhamNC.gov, so Dwayne.Campbell at DurhamNC.gov. So if you're happy to meet with me, just for the talk about your experiences, I will introduce each other, learn about each other. And I think that's one of the best ways that we can build partnership and synergy across the group. And I think that's the way I want to work with you. And again, just look at it this way that I'm here to support you. I'm no content expert when it comes on to this. I'm here to organize as best as possible the thoughts that are brought forward this task force and submitted to the city of Durham. And that's it for me. Thank you so much. Will there be an opportunity to get the listing of your work in writing that we can get out to the members of the task force? Oh, absolutely. Thank you. I really appreciate that. We, you know, he's mentioned to us that we're, you know, we're driving the agenda and Marsha and I are trying our best to make sure it looks more like a six-lane or three-lane highway in that bumper car. So we'll go back to the drawing board on this committee work and we're going to get it right. But the discussion has been very helpful to me. I can say for myself, as far as what it's going to really take to make this work happen in ways that that makes sense, you know, in our wasting time. So I appreciate all of the input. I do want to mention that next week we will meet. In two weeks we will meet. And we're going to, we're going to definitely hear from those who did the work on the 911 calls as far as where they are at this point and where they will be moving forward. And Marsha, one other area that we're going to focus on, what was that for the next meeting? Well, we were going to, we were going to listen to the, to the, yeah, to hear about the 911 because that would touch all that information. It's going to touch all areas of interest. So that was going to be the, and also just how that those round tables, you know, how we're moving forward on the round tables and really addressing beginning to hopefully, I was hoping that, that we would also be able by, by in two weeks to have some sense of other people that are not on the task force serving on those round tables. So that at least some of the folks had got task force members had gotten together to think about who else needs to be on that round table with them. Who would they like to need to fulfill that? Absolutely. We also going to talk about the resource. I'm sorry, the research. Right. That's exactly right. And to introduce, so we have the list of the panels of the government officials essentially, right? The government's different agencies. But this, there's also academic researchers from central Duke and UNC that would also like to help us. So that would be, you know, that's important for us to know as, as task force members in round table. Activists. Absolutely. So those, those two items are definitely part of the agenda. We also will talk about the open meeting laws, how many people can be on a round table and what, what has to happen around your work in a round table session as a committee. So we'll make sure we get clarification on that as well. And then once we get past our next meeting in June, I don't have the date in front of me. And I'm going to make that mistake again, but that in that meeting, we will, we will make clear how you operate within the open meeting laws as well. And hopefully we won't, we can walk away from that next meeting, very clear about how we actually work out and, and operationalize the round tables and next steps. Marsha, you've got a closing. Okay. And the next, yeah, the next thing is June 9th. Thank you. I'm reading my phone, right? Yes. Well, it's again, great to be together. Such, such an honor to serve with y'all. And let's just go around. Just take a second. With a word or a few words. Just what are you taking away from this meeting tonight? And I'll begin. And it has to be inspiration. For me. And pass it. Where it can do. Great. Pass it to Alec. I'm ready to listen. I'll pass it to Jennifer. I'm going to echo Cynthia. I was just thinking to myself that I need to be diligent about setting aside some mental bandwidth for this to, I already knew that, but goodness, after today, I know that. And I will pass to Samuel. Thank you from this meeting. I want to take. I need to take a step back and gain a more familiar understanding of the systems that go into these issues we're about to try to address. So I'll pass it on to Jesse. I'm just leaving with motivation. I got the song motivation in my head. In my head. So motivation. And I will pass it. To Tyler. I'm leaving just ready to listen. Listen was a good word. I think that's. It sounds like that's the collective next phase. After we get all this internal stuff done. So I pass it to. Toyota. And with fellowship. And I'm passing to. I'm leaving with an excitement to learn. To learn from what all these round table conversations have to offer us. And I will pass it to Nori. I am leaving with also excitement. Just to be able to like talk to folks. I'm really good to get their perspectives and opinions. About the topics. Yeah. And I'm going to pass it to Xavier. Of course you can. Of course you can. I'm leaving with gratitude. Gratitude for all that's been said today. All that you wanted to say and didn't. So you wouldn't hurt anybody's feelings. All that you are going to say in the future. That's going to bring us forward. Pass it to Bettina. I'm leaving also with gratitude. I think I'm just very thankful for how thoughtful you are in approaching this work and. Sitting in for board member Lewis today, but I just really appreciate it here and how you all are approaching what we're doing. Oh, and I'll pass it. To Dwayne. I leave it awareness. That we bring in awareness. And I'm going to pass it to Mike. Based on yesterday's anniversary. I would have said in patient, but based on this meeting, I'm going to say hope. Commissioner Burns. She may have had stepped away. Samuel. I've already gone, but just wanted to note that I've read a report yesterday that said. I'm going to pass it to Mike. Based on yesterday's anniversary. I would have said in patient, but based on this meeting, I'm going to say hope. I've read a report yesterday that said that. America has not gone a week without police taking the life of somebody since the death of George Floyd. Just wanted to make that noted. Thank you for lifting up his name. I meant to lift up his name earlier because it's been a year and. Yes, girl. That's been still. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Woo, Carol. How about Ajane? There you go. Thank you. Excitement. Excitement to get this work crack. I can get it cracking. And Amber. Hey, y'all. I'm leaving with continued dedication to this work. Thank you all for your dedication as well. And Manju. I'm leaping with. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was walking down some stairs. But I can say that I am leaving here with a more firm understanding. Of how we need to move forward. And set these tables up to be more equitable, open and safe. Yeah. Beautiful. And with that, thank y'all. And I'm going to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, thank y'all. And see you soon. And we can. Blessings. Night.