 Good evening. Welcome to the April 2024 meeting of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel. Let's start with the introductions. I'll play Hollywood squares as usual. And please introduce yourself briefly. When I call upon you, if you would, Rebecca, you're starting tonight. Hi, everyone. Rebecca Turner from the Defender General's Office. Rand Julio. Good evening. I'm Julio Thompson, assistant attorney general director of civil rights. Thank you. Jeff Jones. Jeff Jones. Retired VSP retired person and original appointee, I guess. Thank you. Farzana. Yes. Farzana Lava Orleans County state's attorney. And Farzana is replacing Tim leaders do mom. Just so you all know. Anyway, he'll be coming as a guest, he says now and then. Right. Right. Did I get that wrong? Yes. No, you got it right. Yes. Okay. Chief Don Stevens. Hi, Don Stevens, chief of the no he can have an I can try executive director of I've been acting up and I've been acting. Thank you. Yes. Jessica Brown, she her pronouns at large appointee to the panel and I am a professor at Vermont Long graduate school and the director of our center for justice reform. Thank you. Judge Morrissey. Hi, I'm Mary Morrissey. I am the judiciary representative on the panel. Thanks. Thank you. Elizabeth. Hi, Elizabeth Morris juvenile justice coordinator at DCF, although I am not the DCF doesn't mean. Got it. Thank you. Jennifer Pullman. Hi, I'm Jennifer Pullman. I'm the director for the Vermont Center for crime victim services and I just continue to pass the committee as a community member. Thank you. Thanks. Grant. Hi, Grant Taylor here taking minutes for the group. Great. Thank you. Dan Bennett. Hey, Dan Bennett. State police deputy director for an impartial policing. And I'm also a ton psychic. Good Lord. You're welcome. Thank you. Yes. You love my friend. I almost thought he said psychic. I had to have an auditory processing thing happen for myself. I knew you were going to say that. My name is Sheila Linton. She her, her pronouns panel member and executive director of the root social justice center. Great. Thank you. Laura Carter. I don't know if you guys can hear my husband talking to my cat in the background. Hi, I'm Laura Carter. I am an analyst for the DRJS within the office of racial equity. Thank you. Reverend Mark Hughes. Unless you're just having your otter pilot do your thing. Tonight. I think that's what's going on. Anyway, he's listening in. Representative arsenal. Hi, everyone. I'm representative Angela Arsena from Williston. I serve on house judiciary. So I'm here as a mostly as a listener. Thank you. Thank you. Jack Rose, please. Having trouble with buttons today. Hi, Jack Rose. She her pronouns. I wish, wish I had a title like a sidekick, but I don't I am the. Still representative from DOC tonight. Derek had surgery today. So he's in recovery. He'll be fine. Good to see you all. Thanks. And then Tiffany North Reed, please. You're muted. Yeah, that would that's not good. Good evening, everyone. I'm joining from the office of racial equity. I'm the manager for the division of racial justice statistics. Nice to see everyone this evening. And you. Have I missed anyone. I will guess not. All right. Well, welcome. Oh, now here he comes. Reverend Hughes. Give him a moment. He's connecting to audio. Mark. Yes. Would you introduce yourself please. Oh, hi. Sorry for being late folks happen. I'm Reverend Mark Hughes. I'm the executive director of the Vermont. Great. Thank you. Oh, and here's Tyler. Tyler. Hi, everybody. Sorry. I'm coming a little bit late names. Tyler Allen. I'm the family services. Division adolescent services director and I am the representative from DCF. It's good to be here. Wonderful. Thank you. I think we've got everyone. Yes. Let's begin with the approval of the minutes. Let's start with February and March, which I sent to you. Let's start with February does. Is there any discussion regarding. Erada or, you know, things that need to be added. Taken away. Anything of that sort. Okay. I'm seeing nothing. Let's just vote then. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sheila. Would anyone like to second. Rebecca is seconding. Great. Let's vote all in favor of accepting the February minutes as submitted. Please signify by saying I are raising your hand or. Hi. All opposed. approved as submitted. Let's do the same with March. Is there any discussion about them? Changes that need to be made, corrections, reframings, seeing none. Would anyone like to submit a motion to accept the minutes? So moved. Thank you. Sheila, Sheila has moved to accept the minutes as submitted anyone seconding? Second. Brand, another vote. All in favor signify in an exciting way. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, great. All opposed. Okay, all abstentions. This is Jessica. I'm abstaining because I was not at the March meeting. Got it. Thank you. And still, yes. Thank you. I also wasn't at the March meeting, so I'm abstaining as well. Thanks. Okay, so we've got those two. You've got those grant those two abstentions. But the minutes have passed as submitted. Who there you have your hand up? I think that's a software glitch. Okay. Alright, we've approved the minutes. Announcements there are a bunch. You may have noticed that Julio is here and Aaron is not. And that is because Aaron no longer is working in state government, and she has become the chief of staff for Mayor Mulvaney Stanek of Burlington. And she wishes us well. It was very sudden. I didn't know that was in the cards. She literally a week ago, Monday, texted me at like eight o'clock in the morning to say hi. It's my first day as chief of staff for and Mulvaney Stanek. And I was like, Oh, great. Thanks. So anyway, there's that. The other issue and it didn't make I just put these all in announcements. I did get in touch with both witchy and Ching. And they would both like to do an exit interview. They're perfectly willing and think it's a great idea. I'd like to thank Mark Hughes for bringing that up very quickly at that last meeting. And what we do need though is someone who's willing to do that. I don't actually have the free time right now to do that one as well. Is there someone and I'll work with someone to get that going. But someone needs to take that project in hand. Is there anyone who's interested or how about this? Think about it. Send me an email. Let's do that. Think about who would like to do it. Send me an email and we'll go from there. That's what I have on that front. There's no hurry on it. But as I say, the big thing is someone who really wants to lead that charge. I'm afraid I can't. So there's that. Forgive me for being a little disorganized. Go ahead. Yes. Since you're speaking to that, I presume that there isn't any qualification or role anybody on that. Can you be more specific? Is it sure the panel is a panel appointed like it's can anybody do it? Anybody on the panel who's a member of the panel can do it. Yes. Thank you. You're more than welcome. Um and you know, as I say, just send an email. We'll go from there. No hurry. But let's let's if you would get me a decision in the next week or so that would be really helpful so we could at least move it along a little Tyler. Thank you, Aetan. I don't want to disrupt that process. I think that might you know, just make sense. Where is there a will who has the energy to you know, energy and ability to do it and let's just see what we have to work work with. That makes some sense, but I'm also wondering as I've explored exit interviews in the past, we want to be mindful about what questions we ask, especially because we usually have consistency from interview to interview because if you want to track it, you know, from any kind of broader way, you need they need to track into each other. So I'm I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth exploring if there are rather than just somebody volunteering to conduct an exit interview, if there couldn't be a group of people that might want to get together to define a process. So I just a suggestion for the group to consider. No, I think that's fine. And I would the thing about the questions you're absolutely right. But I wanted to get someone who was going to lead the charge on that because I didn't want to be the one who who took that one on on top of everything else right now. So I was hoping to get that figured out. And then we could have a whole discussion about questions. Oh, I was looking up all sorts of things this month. There's a whole bunch of stuff to consider that in any event. Sure, if there's a group of people, absolutely. That's perfectly wonderful. So write me. Is that alright, Tyler? I think that makes a lot of sense, a ton. And I probably would volunteer to be part of a group of people. I don't know if I have the capacity to to lead the charge. So but I'll I'll I'll write you a ton. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. That would be great. Yes. Also, I that was part of my question actually to was if we had any materials already to do the exit or do we need to create them? We need to create them. And I think that's a subcommittee. And I think that the subcommittee be should be racially diverse. And as so should the exit committee as well. And or for a people feel comfortable with because just keeping it really real, depending on who is conducting or whoms are conducting those in exit interviews, can get a different response. Yes. So it's important to have something, you know, systematized. And I also think it's important to have more than one person in this case, and it'd be either defined by that person or be a racially diverse group of people to do the exit interview. Totally wonderful. Thank you. Let us do that. But you know, right to me, let me let's, I just want to start with baby steps. But I absolutely agree 100%. There are, if you go online, there are a lot of examples of what an exit interview can look like. And what's really out there is people ask different things. And it depends on the organization. So I was reluctant to bring those because I think we're going to have our own questions that we're going to want to ask. At least I'm assuming that was with a bit of a question at the end. Sorry. I'm hoping we're at questions we want to ask that are really germane to the our depth. So once we get this group together, we'll go from there. And I'm willing to be part of a group that I can do that I can do. But I can't do it all. So cool. Got it. Okay. Hey, Tom, I'm with you on that. I had some experience with interviews too. So if it's a group, I'm down to help you. Oh, yes, you have had experience. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. I'm wonderful. But please, everybody, I hear what you're saying, but also send me an email because I'll just be you know how I get. It's not good. But anyway, those are the announcements that come to mind to me. Oh, no, they're not. I got a lot of responses from the letter I sent. Positive ones, frankly, I got a really lovely letter from the Commissioner of Corrections. I got a lovely letter from the Attorney General. I'm trying to remember. Oh, Heather Simons, who's the Executive Director of the Police Academy and the Criminal Justice Council. And lots of good conversation that I think will come out of that, about what can support the RDAB, in fact. I am, there's a little I can tell you, but I didn't get complete permission from the Attorney General to like submit. The letter was addressed to me. I just feel uncomfortable forwarding it without her permission. She hasn't been able to get back to me yet. But she raised a few points that she thought we should use for brainstorming and I think they're really good. One of them, which I don't think is going to require a tremendous amount of brainstorming in the sense of should we get this or not was the RDAB needs at least one staff person and funding for that. That was something she raised is like a point for us to think about. I like one to write back and go yes, for the love of God, but for everything that's holy, please some a staff member and money. Of course, money is tight. This money's always tight, but you know, everyone says money's tight. She recommends looking at some grants and things like that in order to fund these things. Another question that she brought up that I think would be that she thought we might want to brainstorm about had to do with okay, come on. Remember, remember, you had all this in your head. The possibility of a vice chair, whether you all want that, whether you all want to do that. That'll be enough. I mean, that's another discussion. And I just wanted to raise everything tonight, so that people can think about these things, and we can have a broader discussion about it later. And it's certainly as soon as I get permission from her assuming that I do choose just sort of forward that letter to you all. I will do that. And that'll make this a lot simpler. But that was another discussion that came up. And those were the two big major points that she brought up. And I was yay. She thought those would be a great place to start. I was so happy that someone was like coming up with, you know, we had a fun this better. I was like, Oh, thank God. Yes, we really ought to. So, you know, whatever we need to do. So those were the two big points that came up. And that was from her letter. Commissioner Demmel wants to have lunch to kind of go over further, you know, the points that I raised in the letter. I'm assuming that that's okay with everyone that I do that. Please say if it's not. Not that this is a vote formally. I'm just saying, tell me if it's not. Okay. And I'm also going to have a meal with the Attorney General. Try to get this more figured out. It felt good to me. It felt very energizing that there were, you know, that the people for whom everyone's a proxy, we're sort of gonna, you know, they were really committing to the work of this panel. And certainly, in the case of the Attorney General, you know, a willingness at least to look for some money to get staff if we could get it. And so one of our discussions will be, you know, what do we need for staff? She recommended someone who would keep up with the legislative moves, which made me very happy. I'm sure it will make some of you very happy given what a mess this section has been in terms of getting bills. So that's that's the other thing. I think that we're going to be able to get some stuff moving that we've been hoping for for a long time. Of course, right, Julio's here. We've already done that part. Julio is going to be here for I don't know how long until they decide until they decide who's going to be the Attorney General's proxy. And that's those are the announcements. Any questions, Rebecca? Questions? No, no question. Just a comment. I appreciate you sharing sharing the feedback from your letter. To the extent that it is nice to hear that the Attorney General's seem supportive or recognizing our need for staff, but you might share that we have repeatedly asked for that for a very long time. And I would be hesitant for us to get in the business of grant writing when we already have no time for the substantive stuff. But certainly you might you might share that that in our reports, even an asking for additional support from the legislature by way of resources. We'll do will do. Are you that? I'm sorry. Did I interrupt you, Rebecca? No. Okay. Okay. We'll do Don. Just quick question. Also, I know there are certain agencies they have to be specifically put in statute to be able to receive grants and funding because they're not a 501c3 or not. So since you're since we are a kind of I don't want to say well, government agency kind of are appointed by the government. Are we allowed to even receive grants, you know, or hold funding in that capacity? I guess that's a legal question by the AG. Anyway, I just know that the Commission on the American Affairs had to get special. I think put in the statute that they could actually solicit a whole grants because they're an agency derived by the state. I'm not sure that we would have a problem, but I will check. Thank you. Anyone else? No, okay. And then I know that the next item, possible discussion about juvenile residential facility, I put that in as possible because of the last meeting you were called. Sheila had brought this up. Tyler was excited, but he was also like can't do it this month. And so all right. But Sheila, I wanted to at least reserve the floor for you if you had something you wanted to, you know, say to the panel without, you know, without Tyler's additions to that yet. Oh, that's so sweet. That's so sweet. So for those of you, some of you know me more intimate than others, but as the Executive Director of the Route, we have programming and one of our programming is Youth for Change and Families United. And Families United is a program that's peer based families who are impacted by the DCF system. And Youth for Change is a peer led group of youth who do a variety of different things. But one of the things that they do is they take on initiatives or campaigns or issues that they are passionate about to try to change or contribute their voices to in various different ways. So Youth for Change co-hosted an event at the Route and we've had some other events through Families United about what's called the rest stop. And Tyler can speak more to the details of what it entails. But basically, from our point of views, that it is a place that is where youth will be placed in transition from a home, but it's built around on with police. And whether that's utilizing their actual physical space, utilizing them as resources and or collaborating with them as partners or other other financial ways, it is a direct correlation to police and goes against our values in terms of what we believe youth need for dignity as well as overall what we believe at the Route. And so the youth have been advocating for no rest stops. And I brought one to bring this to this group because of course we have Tyler here who is a part of DCF and we consistently throughout the years have not prioritized as much youth justice as maybe I would like. And I know that this year I voiced that again and I'm happy that we are making sort of that turn. And so as a issue, there are many that are going on with the system. This is a big issue and big issue for our communities in particular, this event that we held had over two, three dozen youth who showed up and including Tyler not to say that you're a youth Tyler Tyler showed up as well, which was very nice. But we and these are youth who are impacted by the system who have been through the system are in the system been impacted by the system, etc. And so and they voice their concerns and their ideas and their trauma and it's really deep. And so of course when we get into racial disparities, which is why we're all here is like I start thinking we all know that you can name anything and I can't think of anything that doesn't really have a racial disparity to it. And so if you got something, let me know we'll do that trivia later behind the scenes. But was thinking about what type of youth are being placed in these facilities, and why as well and disproportionately are those youth of color. So you know, as there is many issues to juvenile justice overall, breaking it down for other reasons why we're here to focus on two is those racial disparities. And my concern that that those rest stops are going to not only not be with youth need, but it will disproportionately affect youth of color. So I want us to bring that into the space and I personally will just be transparent that I'm a thumbs down for this type of housing for our youth. Okay, no, great. So, Tyler, do you have anything you want to I mean, you're not supposed to be talking, right? Because like, no, I would love to just chime in one thing. A first, I want to appreciate she law for bringing up this conversation to this group want to appreciate you for hosting that event and having me come participate. It was it was good to be there for the late night for me. But it was it was a night well spent. And I was really excited to have this conversation at the end of last month's meeting. And you heard that in my tone. And the reason why I said not this month was not because I'm not excited to have the conversation. It was because I went back to my deputy commissioner right away and I said, this is what we're talking about. And this is an opportunity to gather feedback from this group. And they want to talk about this. She's really excited about it too. And she wanted to be present. She was not available for tonight. So the reason that I said, can we wait until May's was because, you know, my leadership wants to be part of that conversation too. So that that's all. It's not that I'm not thrilled to have it. No, I didn't mean to imply that I just knew that okay, no, it will be it'll be at the, you know, after our introductions and announcements and approvals and so on, that'll be at the top of our agenda. Tiffany. Yes, I have a question about that because this is my first time hearing about this program. I'm wondering, and I wish I could have attended I wish I had known about that event because I would have wanted to hear the perspectives from the youth. But I'm wondering if this could be some kind of a we could maybe have an information gathering slash report on this issue because we have been attending a lot of the legislative like hearings about the youth detention center and some of the issues, a lot of the issues, you know, related to that. I'm just wondering if there could be an opportunity for us to kind of gather data about what's been what's been done in other states and then also just on the ground like learning more about this particular initiative and I think providing a space for the youth to have a voice and you know, definitely we want to be in the lived experience framework as well as we're gathering information. I'm just wondering if this might be an opportunity to do that. Okay, Rebecca. Thank you. Yeah, I really I really support Sheila bringing this issue to our DAP and getting this on our agenda. I think it's absolutely critical from the Defender General's perspective. We have a lot of, you know, information we can provide, whether it's historical how we got here, what happened, what existed before, why doesn't it exist now? I'm referring to Woodside and how do we make sure what happens next? As you say, Sheila really addresses, you know, the needs and incorporates the voices of the youth and also doesn't ignore and is acknowledging what happened in Woodside to not have it happen again. I think that it would make sense if again, the panel is interested in pursuing this subject further to have our expert from the Defender General's come to speak to our DAP on it. Marshall Paul, who is both our deputy and the juvenile defender for a system and has deep expertise in this area and he can provide data, he can provide the racial disparities and experience of Woodside, history on that, why that happened or not and other thoughts. So I offer him up and he's not here, but he didn't know this was on our agenda today. And so I gave him a preview that this might be coming. He's in. Tiffany, is when you talk about the data, does it, is this, I guess I should sort of be talking to both you and Rebecca, Rebecca, what form is the data that you have that the ODG has in? Is it in a report of some form? I won't, I won't claim to say all the data that that Marshall Paul has available. I know a lot of it is actually also lands of DCF and their reporting requirements to the federal government in terms of demographics based on race and ethnicity in terms of who's been held in secure detention facilities by the state and they have those going back several, I don't know how far back, but there is more. And I think Marshall has shared some of that data with this group in other contexts, but I can get back to you. Okay. And that would be something. Yeah, because Tiffany, is that the sort of thing that you would like? Yes, it would be significantly helpful. And I think anything that would aid what you're trying to do here, we want to support. I think as we kind of round out the division and start to, you know, get resources, put together resources, I think for policymakers for the public. These are the kind of issues that we want to tackle. And I think used as a platform in some way, because I think if we have information and we have reports, we can, you know, we can support listening sessions and just getting the information out and understanding what needs to happen next, maybe from an advocacy standpoint, standpoint just in terms of getting those resources out. So I think if you have ideas to kind of help us structure what that might look like and or what the needs are, we definitely want to be available to help. Right. Great. Thank you. Tyler, I just want to share briefly that we have a great deal of resource within the room here. So the report that Rebecca was speaking to that Marshall would probably come in and speak to those very data are are pulled, analyzed and reported out by our own Elizabeth Morris was on this group. So we do have pretty ready access to getting at some of the data that we use those federal data. I also want to just clarify this group. I don't want to get ahead of the conversation that I promised my deputy commissioner that she could be part of, but I want to make sure that this group knows that while we could frame all of the stuff we've talked about so far kind of related to the crisis of the day from the DCF perspective, there is a difference between the development of our, you know, of secure treatment programming of psychiatric mental health treatment programming. You know, there's several levels of system of care that we're talking about that is distinct from the practice of using the rest stop. The rest stop, there is nobody making the argument that that is a preferred treatment setting or placement setting even. That's kind of patently something we all want to step away from. So they might, there might be two discussions to be had in there and I'm hesitant to lump them into one. I was wondering that myself. So we could do this over two months easily, right? Over two meetings. We could have your deputy commissioner whose name, sadly, I do not know. Her name is Erica Ratke. Thank you. And we could have what her, I mean, next month, since you've already sort of put that out there for her. And then in whatever the next month is after that, I'm really feeling stupid tonight. That would be June. Can you, Rebecca, can you ask Marshall about being here for June? I will. Great. All right. Sheila, does that all work for you? That works for me. Great. All right. We've got this set. And so that will be on our agendas for May and June. Thank you all. Cool. All right. Now the really fun part. Discussion concerning bills with an equity focus currently at play in the legislature or slash how to get a functional pipeline between legislature and the RDAB. Well, let me start with this. I put Rebecca down for this one because this is something we've been talking about, but I also want to say we spoke about this at our last meeting and about writing a letter to the vice chair and chairs of both Senate judiciary and House judiciary. What was kind of interesting, I I had to testify, you may remember, the day after our last meeting and Martin Lalonde, poor man. I mean, he just looked so he looked exhausted and he said I am totally up for having this conversation with the RDAB in the summer. And I was like, oh, I let it go. And then I emailed him later. Actually, we talked on the phone and I think we did, didn't we? We emailed. I get something. We were in touch and, you know, I was kind of like, you know, maybe sooner and sooner is just not going to happen for these people right now. I we can talk about whether that's right or wrong or whatever. It's just not happening for them right now. So that's what I wanted to let you know on that front. I did not then in the end write the letter because it was very clear from conversations that that was something that would have to happen later than the session. I was not perhaps. Yeah, I mean, I was hoping for earlier, but people have lives, you know, and so I just let that go. I wanted to report that out to you. That's all I wanted to put out. If you've got any questions or comments, please put them forth. And then otherwise, Rebecca, if you've got any further thoughts. I always have further thoughts. So on this on this subject, I would second your your your your reaction or your your thoughts on this. I do. I'm in there regularly for the Office of Defender General. I see not just the chair, but Representative Arsenault is on there. They're all going full day. And we were just closing. I think I actually they hadn't been adjourned when I left at 435 today. So that seems a reflection of the realistic demands on on his clock and the clock. So I'm not surprised by that. But here's here's here are my thoughts. I know that agenda items suggested I might be sharing some relevant bills that I think raise or carry consequences of potential racist racial disparities. And I think like there's not time. Is the short answer. And I've shared this before and it's sort of triggered my comments before in past meetings. I think that I think that we have, we know that that certain committees, I think it's the judiciary has reached out to you asking for you or others on this panel to come and testify with not a lot of notice, certainly not realistic notice that that lets us get there. And I'm saying us collectively, not myself personally. Cause again, I'm in there regularly as part of my duties at the General General's office. So we know they want us on particular bills. I'm in there to share that I, at least the bills I've seen, you could be, we could be, our DAP could be there for all of those. I see race racial disparities or potential impact on every bill that proposes an enhanced penalty, a new penalty, felonizing prior misdemeanors, creation of new crimes, significant changes to bail where rates are changed, right? Where there's a presumption to hold or the easier burdens on the state. All of which I'm saying as a reflection of my expertise as a criminal defense attorney and a defender and representing clients generally and then knowing how that plays out to my clients who are black and brown or from communities historically disadvantaged. And of course my clients are indigent. So they are by definition impoverished. And I see just that group being, having more impact by these policies. So I think, and we have panel members here who I hear, they've come in to say contrary positions, not necessarily on the racial aspect impact but state's attorney's office, right? And attorney general's office, department of corrections regularly and in these same committees often only same bills having different viewpoints. So I don't know that it's useful for us for me to share my particular viewpoint. I think this, I think that we have a structural problem fundamentally to being able to respond to the legislature's request on specific bills as a panel member and as a member of the defender general's office. I see so many bills having huge impact and they are not hearing. I'm part of these witnesses. I can see the witness list once, once they pass out of the committees and crossover. There are some significantly scary substantial changes to criminal codes, entire sections like the drug codes I talked about last session where they are not hearing from a single community member of color, period. We are sometimes the only ones or maybe the ACLU will be in there or someone from Susana Davis's office. But there are three witnesses and you think and you compare the witness list of who else is coming in and there is disparities in terms of where those interests are being represented. So I see a huge role for RDAB, of course. How to do it? Do we put this? Do we create a subcommittee as our next agenda for the year as to our recommend how we can do this structurally? Is it that there's an alternative entity in place? Not us, is it that we do it but only if we're resources certain way? My recommendation to this group right now this month is that we consider this month, next month, next agenda whether we want to pursue this more seriously, treat it like a kin to our second look to the subcommittees we created last year, the data entity so that we can come to a recommendation perhaps sooner than the fall. Again, this for when the legislature would be taking draft requests in the summer and have a subcommittee of people who hopefully would represent a cross-section of this panel and come together to make recommendations. Okay, okay. That would also be something that when I have lunch with the attorney general I will bring up is somebody who in her letter she had said in the interest of brainstorming we may want to think about this person who would in fact do exactly what you're saying and bring us up to speed, keep monitoring all of the bills that go through. I mean, the other issue that I think of is ORE has this really lovely equity impact assessment and I'm sort of like, why isn't that being used? I mean, it's precisely for bills that, I mean, that was one of the, that was one thing that it was supposed to focus upon and I'm not hearing those being completed. Thank you, Laura. Yeah, I mean, I'm just kind of like I, right. And Reverend Hughes says that they're voluntary, exactly. But I think we may need to make more noise about that now because that's simply not happening. And as a lot of people on the panel and both people who are guests, I mean, Mark brought this up last time very eloquently. They're just not asking. They're just not questioning coming about that sort of issue. For me, if you perceive that there is a crime wave and I say perceive because I have some different ideas about that, that's precisely the moment at which civil rights have to be put forth. It's easy to put them forth when you feel safe. When you don't, it's very easy to just pass by them. And so I think that that may be an issue there. I mean, if you haven't seen the equity impact assessment, Laura, Tiffany, it's on your website, right? Yeah, I'll put a link in the chat. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. I have a question too. Is it about people not knowing about the equity impact tool? And also, how do we get the word out? Because I've literally had direct questions in the past two weeks about where can people go for equity tools? So I just think people may not know that we have this as a resource and just, I don't know if you have any recommendations on how to get the word out. And representative Arsena says yes, there. I think we, I guess we have to think about that. Tyler, you had your hand up. I did, and I think I'm just gonna show a little bit of ignorance here, but I'm gonna be comfortable. This is safe space. So I'm aware of, excuse me, an equity, a racial equity impact assessment that goes for, you know, for bill reviews moving up in the executive branch, like when we're considering any bills and things, is that a different tool than what we're talking about here? Is it the same thing? So is there a tool that's specifically targeted for being developed in the legislature or by a committee or something along those lines? Not that I know of. There's, I mean, that tool is very broad and, you know, really radical, but it can be used in a variety of circumstances, I should think. Because I know we use it internally. I've seen many go through, but I don't know where it all always goes to. There are two, coach, that coach, two, there are two. Ah, the social equity caucus has a tool as well. And coach can speak to that. That's from Representative Arsenault. The tool, the tool that was developed by the caucus was a multi-faceted tool that we engaged a number of different folks in that process. We flipped the paradigm upside down. So instead of it being a legislative led process, it was a community led process. We had an 18 member committee and of the 18, 16 were community members and only four were legislators. So that was the paradigm shift. And one of the outcomes of that work was the tool that came from the caucus. Came from the caucus and it is being used like other tools, not as widely as we would hope, but it's available and people that are aware are asking the questions. But is it being used enough? No, just like the Office of Racial Equity's tool. Is it being used enough? No. So the combination of the two, if we could get it peppered throughout the process, we'd be making better strides. We should look at both of them, I think. Cause I am not as familiar with the one from the SEC. Rebecca, you have a question. No question, just a comment to add. I would also just say that other states, other state legislatures have passed equity impact assessment laws so that it's not voluntary, it's required and similar to environmental impact studies. That is people are more familiar, the state governments are more familiar with, but absolutely I'm glad that these two tools have been brought up because they should be, so again, bringing this back, if we wanted to continue with this, whether I see that one of the comments Tiffany North Green offered up a presentation on one assessment tool, I think we should have both, whether we want it to be at the panel-wide level, I think is a great idea, but here's again an opportunity where the subcommittee could dive deeper and look at what other states have done, ideas actually passed, how it's gone, how it could be improved and bring that back to the panel. Then let's, do you wanna make a subcommittee now or do you want to look at the assessment tools first and then go from there? That's just a general question, how do people feel about this? Just a question of process, anybody? How about this then? How about we do the presentation from ORE? I think it would be good, it would be nice to have it from the SEC as well, but I don't know who we can get for that. Coach, do you have any ideas on that front? Okay, I'm driving, so I- Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, I wanted to, I saw the agenda, so I thought I should be here for this one. And so my thinking is let's see if we can get a group. There are, there's a couple of committees that are using it more actively. And I think if we got a couple of those folks, they could do, give you a much clearer picture of what it looks like on the ground. Okay. If that helps. Yeah, no, it would be nice to hear from them in fact. I'm thinking House General, they use it more actively. And as you know, they get a lot of the bills that cross pollinate with a lot of the things that were involved in. Okay, yep. How, all right. How do people feel about the presentation on the tool that ORE invented? Yeah? Okay. Tiffany, let's do that for next month. Okay, that sounds good. Okay. I'll reach out to the affinity space. Sure. And see who we could get to do a, a mini presentation for that as well. Great. Thank you very much. We'll be in touch, you and I. Great. Good. So that'll be there too. And Representative Arsena says that she would volunteer to work on that bill request if she's reelected. So Rand will work on that. Thank you. But that sounds like something that's important. Tiffany would like a link to the SEC assessment tool. Is that possible, Coach? If, if Tiffany goes to the SEC's website. Okay. It's, it's there. Okay. That all right, Tiffany? I'm on there. I've been looking and it, it may be my fault. It's late in the day. I'm certain it's there. I will look and cause I think that will be a useful comparison and just so we see where we overlap and maybe even what, what we might, we might be missing. So I appreciate that. Okay. Yeah. I'll look. Thank you so much. So we'll move on to that one. And as Reverend Hughes says, there's no equivalent in the Senate. Isn't that interesting? Hmm. Why can't they just use the same one? Well, well, the thing is, it is there, but because there isn't a commitment on the part of the Senate to utilize it, it's just there. Okay. That helps. That helps enormously in fact. Thank you. Because the majority leader, the majority leader was part of the committee that helped bring that to fruition. Got it. Okay. So, you know, they don't, they don't get a, you know, like a buy on that, you know, other than they're the more deliberative body. If you detect a little humor in my voice. Just a tad, sir. Just a tad. Okay. Oh yeah. I'm sorry. Go ahead. We link to your, it is the same assessment. So I don't know who originated it. It sounds like your group, but we reference your tool. So I think we're talking about the same tool. The state of Vermont impact assessment tool revised in 2022 is what we have on our website. So it sounds like we're using the same thing. And we just, I think we're, no? No, there are two. There are two. Yours is a little more detailed in, you know, step by step. You know, ours takes a little more global approach because of the legislative, you know, aspect, you know, of the process. But when you do the side by side, you know, you can really see, you know, how they fit together. Okay. We'll do. Okay. Thank you so much. You know, because they, they are a brother and sister tool. Okay. For lack of a better metaphor. Siblin things, yes. All right. So we're going to go. Representative Arsena has put something in the chat. Right. I think I got, I think I picked up what coach was, was talking about. It's the probing equity questions, right? Coach. Yeah, exactly. Okay. So that'll be here. Good. Thank you. All right. So that will be our next, and I guess what I'm going to say is look through them. If you've, if you have no familiarity with them, please look through them so that we can have a substantive conversation next month. So, because we need to, this will be part of something. What I'm thinking is that this would be something I would raise with the attorney general that she's offered the notion that that might, you know, the idea of having some kind of staff for this panel. And that might be something, you know, someone who in fact makes, goes through the legislation and makes sure that various committees are in fact looking at those assessment tools and using them. Yeah. And using them. And so I can bring that up as something that the panel's learned about. I mean, it's sort of an outgrowth of everything we've been talking about. This session, because I mean, they haven't even contacted the Racial Justice Alliance about stuff. I mean, it's been what? ACLU, sometimes the defender general, never the RJAP, I mean, it's been a little strange. And I really do mean it when I say that, you know, I know that there's a bunch of, and people have said to me, well, you know, we're worried about this crime wave. And I have to say personally, you know, transparency here. If you look at the FBI website, violent crimes are at a historic low nationwide. Nationwide. Property crimes are up in various locales, but not nationwide. They're up in places like New York, places like Los Angeles. San Francisco shut down nine target stores in the Bay Area because of theft. And then somebody from one of the independent media sources, I'm trying to remember which one it was, I'll find out, went and did a study. And in fact, those nine stores were underperforming. Right, right. And the stores that were nearby are still wide open and ready for business. So target lied. And there's a lot of that sort of thing that seems to be going on. So I'm a little suspicious when I start hearing about, you know, crime waves, just sort of a blanket crime wave. And, you know, then every, and as I say, and I think we have proof of this, people when they hear that, well, we have to get on this, you know, we have to solve the crime wave and questions about civil rights and the stuff that we do around racial disparities is put on a back burner. When I would argue that's precisely the moment when it needs to be on the front burner. Well, remember, Etan, this is sometimes used to manipulate the discussion. The discussion. Shock, shocked I am. You know, and, you know, like I go back to something that, you know, I learned in recovery and it's the definition of fear because it's a tool used to create a fearful environment. You know, and all of a sudden you're in control when everybody's fearful. Right. When you take fear and you put it out, false evidence appearing real. Right. I like it. But I do, thank you. I thought you'd appreciate that. Yeah, I did. And I may be a little bit off of, you know, topic right now, but I do think that this is really a sort of central issue that's got to be thrown back to the legislature for next session. But that's really got to come up because this behavior is really disturbing to me. It's making me very nervous. You can all disagree with me, please. I know I'm sounding like I know everything and I don't. I don't know. There's a lot I don't know, but I'm just saying I've been doing some research and things are not quite what they seem, at least in what I'm looking at. Aha. You know, you've answered your own question. I think so, but. And, you know, in either case, I just an equity impact assessment and a bill that mandates it, that it must happen. But, you know, becomes a law. I don't think there's a problem with that. I think that gets us around some of the stuff that we're dealing with right now. Well, see, that's it. They done, you know, sorry to kind of join in and take a lot of the conversation. But one of the things having done this work for a minute, as my kids would say, that's what I see and that's what happened. You know, you take the good work of the Office of Racial Equity. You take the good work of the social equity caucus. They developed these two tools and then tried to in the Office of Racial Equity's perspective, really, you know, move that through state government. And as we've been hearing, some people do it with fidelity and some people don't. Right. On the legislative side, we had the biggest transition in legislators just as we were formulating, you know, the probing equity questions. So it was kind of easy for leadership, both in the House and the Senate, to go, ah, it's not that high on the priority list. Right. Okay, so all that work that we did to develop that and the sense that it makes, it's just kind of floating out there. Yeah. You know, and as long as nobody says anything about it, you know, they, you know. Now, that's the rest of the story, I guess. Right. But I think this is a good place to focus, actually. It might, it would help. Oh, yes. And then as far as getting the pipeline established I would suggest, I think we have to hear what the Attorney General has to say about what we would get for staff. Yeah. Does anyone see a different path here that I'm missing? Okay. I will definitely be very firm about that. Thank you all. Great discussion. Anything else on this? Okay. The last three items, state of letters to the legislature. We've sort of talked about that. Exit interviews, we talked about that. And I put on there the possible review of the letter to me from the Attorney General. I gave you as much of one as I could do without really getting permission from her to share it. And I did, I really, maybe I'm old school. I just don't feel comfortable sending out a letter to a group of people that was addressed to me without permission. And so I understand she's very busy and, you know, but I'm going to work at that again and then likely if she agrees, I will send it out by email. And then Mark's comment in chat. There should be an implementation delay on criminal justice reform rollbacks to allow for an outside impact assessment review to enable us to understand the totality of the collective policy changes. This will also allow for a racial equity review of state investments and systems of prevention, mental health and other social support. We will write that. Go ahead, Rebecca, I'll stop right now. Um, you know, thank you, Mark, for putting that in the chat. You raised that, I think last month as well. You did. I think that it's worth just putting another pause on that point because what we're talking about in terms of the frustration, the collective frustration seems to be asked and not having the structural ability to provide real time insight and this talk about developing and meeting with the chairs, the summer and perhaps next session, Mark's point is well taken. And I think we can and should, as a panel, consider whether we want to make any immediate, take any immediate action now for this session by way of even just this proposal. I know, I like that, certainly sends a message and that could be, it's a different type of letter. It could be a different way or form would communicate this to the legislature, but instead of asking the chairs of the judiciary committees to come and join us for conversation, it can be a letter from our committee or from our panel to these chairs. Okay. Encompassing the ideas of Mark because I don't know how other panel members feel. But I would support that. Does anyone want to take that letter on? I know that was like a major jump, wasn't it? But seriously, does anyone want to take that letter on? We did say it was priority. We know, Mark. We're trying to get there. All right. Hey, Tom. Hey. Hi, folks. Would Mark, would you mind just for my understanding also just clarifying the scope of what is referenced in the reforms? Is that like any legislation that's sat in the criminal legal space that is making its way through this current legislative session or is it like a more defined set of particular bills? And he's throwing that to Rebecca. I actually, I'm gonna throw this back to the panel. We have just been talking generally about whether we want to turn this into a major priority item. I call it major, but we have two right now that I'm sensing for the upcoming calendar year. Yes. Of what our dApps and we haven't really, I think formalized maybe we have where we're going next after the report. And now, you know, Sheila's discussion point on the residential facilities for youth. And then this seems to be taking shape, but is there a panel, you know, wide interest in this? Because if there is, I don't think it's such a radical thing for this panel to say we're concerned that there are, we've been asked to come. We haven't been able to provide it. That there should be a racial impact assessment or considerations done before whatever, whatever kinds of bills you want to talk about our past. I would volunteer. It's just, I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. All right. I'll find time. I'll find time. Okay. Mark, I'd like to be able to talk to you on a fairly frequent basis. If I might just want to say that. Thank you, sir. Okay, I will get going on this ASAP. I just need you all to know that I'm as busy as you are right now. And there's not a lot of space, you know, but I will do, I will get on it as. Okay. Ray, that's eight town at the risk of hopefully not unduly, but well-intendedly embarrassing or calling in in a way that's unwanted. Mike's colleague from ORE, Jay Green. Last week, H645 was in front of Senate Judiciary and not unlike so many other bills, which is of course the point here, there was not an invitation specifically for ORE to testify, but Jay did a wonderful job submitting a letter. So it's Senate Judiciary, it's H645. It was submitted under documents and handouts last Thursday and it was specific to that bill, but they provided some really wonderful contextual language in the beginning of the letter that basically made this same point that said, all too often reforms in this space unless they are explicit about the equity component, that just sort of, you know, fritters away. And so my intent by mentioning this is hopefully again, and I don't think Jay's here, I believe Laura is, but A, it's great work and I celebrate it and B, it might save you a little thought capital in that obviously while you wouldn't take their exact language, I would recommend it for a nice little piece of sort of adjacent inspiration. And yeah. Well, I think the letter would be really useful if it sites, oh, thank you, Laura. Thanks, Laura. You know, if we're taking, saying hi, the racial justice alliance is concerned with this, the office of racial equity is concerned with this. Our DAP would like to weigh it on this. You guys put this together to do this kind of work and you're not like using us. What the hell? What gives? Yep. Right. I mean, I won't say what the hell, that's a little unprofessional, but you know, sometimes the effect of, we are confused, you know, in any event. Yeah, I just think it's a great example of how you have to take an outsider approach to what should be a de facto part of the legislative process. It's making the marginal mainstream. Yeah, I can also say just to add on to that and I appreciate Jay and Laura for their work on tightening up the language. I know initially, I think we submitted some language recommendations back in, it might've been February or January, probably it was February. But I do remember also that we kind of have similar challenges and I think, you know, often we're kind of at the last minute like, oh, we might get a request and it's literally like we're on it the day of and just so we can turn it around. So I think if there is a way to start to see what you all do or come up with, because it is ideal to have more time to kind of draft the language and be available to testify, but I think we understand is similarly kind of the challenges and just the magnitude of bills and just trying to attend all the hearings that we see that are equity related and we're just like, okay, just in terms of having the number of staff to follow them and provide supports there, we definitely take, we understand the challenges. Okay, thank you. Can I also just piggyback off of that and just echo something that Rebecca Turner said earlier about how pretty much every bill right now has some kind of maybe unintended impact or unintended consequences regarding equity issues, racial equities, racial disparities, all of those kinds of things. So we are trying our best to monitor everything but there's a lot, there's a lot out there. Yeah, we know. Julio, I've got a question for you and that is the open meeting laws. I can write a letter, but then what? I cannot send it electronically and do this all that way. I have to bring it to the next open warned meeting. If I am, am I right about this? Oh, the letter to whom? I guess I'm not clear. I think that this letter will probably, let's see, who do we want the letter to go to about bill obfuscation, joint judicial oversight, joint judicial oversight, both house judiciary and Senate judiciary. Those are all questions. I don't know if that's post for the group or me. No, those are open questions to the group. I'm sorry Julio, I'm sorry. So Rebecca Turner, for what's worth guess, those are all good suggestions. Okay, okay, then we can just do that. If somebody, Derek? Yeah, I'm sure like many of us, we kind of toggle between trying to take a more tactical approach and refining the audience with the hope of having a more specific impact as opposed to a broader, like I remember, the only thing I remember I think from CPR training is like if somebody needs somebody, you don't just shout out like, hey, somebody got somebody, right? You point to somebody specifically, you say, you. You know, and that would suggest a more refined scope. But on the flip side, there's really nothing that comes through the legislative branch that does not call in and have equity implications, right? I mean, it is about the fundamental structures through which we regulate and allocate resources and constitute ourselves as individuals, as communities. So I just wanna voice that sort of yes and part of me feels like do we, like I just want us to make a conscious decision about if that's a tactical approach because I don't wanna reify this notion that racial equity is only the purview of the criminal legal system because that then of course, we just continue the pigeon hole in two. Yes. I'll hold off for a moment. Mark. I appreciate you, Derek. And at the same time, when we first envisioned the RDAB when I think it might have been H-496 and House judiciary in 2017, and the thought process was oversight. It was oversight of the criminal justice system. We started with title 20, 2358 and 2366, rather, which is fair and impartial policing policy, training and race data collection. We wanted to expand into other areas like use of force, so on and so forth. Long story short, it was all about racial disparities in the criminal justice system. That's what the RDAB was envisioned for. That's what you are actually permissioned to do, which is why you're under the Attorney General's office. Right, perfect. And thank you for that re-grounding. That makes total sense. So I just wanna make sure that that's important and it's important to understand. And I think the other thing too, Eric, is from on this side of the fence, what it looks like looking in that direction is that post-reconstruction, when you start looking at, from a historical context, we know to blow back after 1877 and how we fell back as a nation in white lash we saw the same thing happen post-civil rights when everything was burning down in 68 and moving forward when we elected Richard Nixon and decided to have a war on drugs. And this is your third white lash, my friend. Right. So I just wanna make sure that it's really clear that, one of the reasons why this is significant as well at this moment, because we are in a moment of history, I realize there's a lot of people on this call it, maybe you're not watching national news or maybe you're not correlating what it is that we're doing here as a nation or maybe you're not tuned into what's happening allegedly politically. But I just wanna make it very, very clear. What's happening right now is, I'm not gonna call it unprecedented because it's the third time that it's happened as a nation, but I'm gonna say, let's dial in, let's pay attention to what's going on and let's do what it is that we came to do here. Yep. So I'll leave it there. And I think one of the frustrating things, and I appreciate the moment here, Atom, one of the frustrating things here is, while all of this is going on, we have a constitutional amendment for equal protection, a constitutional amendment lawyers for equal protection. And I don't see anybody from the RDAB showing up and offering any testimony at all. I hadn't heard a P by the Attorney General's office, who we are. A constitutional amendment for equal protection. Come on, folks. Hmm. So that did come out of House Judiciary and it's had its first day. Right. And what came out of that? It sits, it will sit there for five days and then it'll go to the full floor of the Senate. The Senate has to vote, the Senate has to give it a two thirds vote for it to cross over. Where after, after which time it goes to the house, the house has to have a hearing and it needs to have a majority vote. It needs to come out of the house judiciary and needs to have a majority vote on the floor of the house and come back to the Senate before session ends. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Now that I get. Who, Mark, is doing testimony on this and where, if anyone that you know of? Office of Racial Equity offered testimony the folks over at the ACLU offered testimony and big over at HRC offered testimony. Okay. Women's Commission showed up as well. Those were testimonies in the affirmative. Got it. Thank you kindly. So I'm feeling like that letter, Derek, I hear what you were saying, but I'm sort of with Mark on this. We're here for. Me too. Absolutely. And thank you for bringing me back to that. I sort of, I sort of lost a lack of that origin story because of obviously how intersectional this all is. But that 100% no, I don't disagree in any way, shape, or form. And that is the charge of the RDAAP. And staying in that lane and being as impactful as possible in that lane, which is a big lane, is where we want to be. Right. Okay. So then that question that I raised to you, Julio, which is about writing this letter and getting feedback from the panel intersects in interesting ways with open meeting laws. Is that something you can address? Not at the moment. We have other folks in our office who enforce or provide guidance on the open meeting laws. That's not a civil rights unit. Right. So I can check back. I mean, I don't know that it would be any different than the drafting process that you've used for other RDAAP reports. I'd love that. But that's just that's just my intuitive reaction. I don't, I mean, just because it's a letter to legislature, you know, either the form of testimony or it could be, I mean, sometimes our office, we just submit back in it. So like if there is a parallel state law, we just provide it with law. Okay. Without testimony as a, as part of building legislative record references. Yeah, I was just thinking because I'll start writing this, but then I want, it goes so much more easily if I can send it to panel members and people can give feedback and say, I don't like this part. Here's what I would recommend something like that. It works so much better if we remember that we're in the 21st century and not in the 18th where people can actually use tools we all have. And I would like to do that, but if I'm going to get pilloried for it. Well, I think what you're talking about then is a shorter process whereby the letter would be written before there's another RDAAP meeting so that there would be zero opportunity for transparency with the public and input from the public. Is that what you're saying? Well, I just know, I mean, Erin made a big point about the open meeting laws and what we could do and what we can't do. And I don't know, she was as frustrated as everybody else with this. I'm just trying to get some clarity because all I want to do is say, I will work on it and I'll send a draft to everybody, mark it up, tear it apart, do whatever you want, send it back and we'll put it together like that before the next RDAAP meeting. But I think with the idea of being done, the draft letter would ultimately be discussed in the meeting or differently. I'll bring it at the next meeting. Yeah, that would help me frame the question for them. And Erin would have been more knowledgeable for me because she worked in the division that deals with public records and I do not. Just us, we specialize or divide our work. Well, I'm just an ignorant musician. I can't be expected to know the law. So maybe that's what we'll just do. And I'm the first to admit, I'm not as familiar with the meeting laws, Erin. Let's go with that. All right, I've been on it folks and thank you all for those of you who will help. I'm not gonna say what I'm gonna start. It will get done. I'm just gonna leave it there so my blood pressure doesn't go through the roof. That really takes us through the agenda for tonight. Anyone have any new business? Well, we have a lot. I mean, obviously we just threw a bunch out. But any other new business? Okay. Thank you all. Our next meeting is the 14th of May. You will see a draft letter before then. I don't think it needs to be very long and it won't be. And it'll quote a lot of things. And rather than go through the ridiculous process of voting ourselves to adjourn, does anyone feel like we should continue talking? That's a new wrinkle on Roberts by the way that I just came up with. Anytime. Yes. I just wanted to put out that the Richard Kemp Center, Christine, you'll probably see it all over social media. God, yes. They're taking, they have a trip called Sankofa and they're taking probably about 30 folks down to DC. Yes. I'm not gonna drop it in the chat or anything like that, but I'm pretty sure everybody's on social media all of the time. You should probably see it floating around on Facebook and Instagram, or you can just reach out to me directly and I can just mail it to you, but they're still raising money. I think they're still maybe a little bit behind and they're supposed to be leaving out, I think at the end of next week. So for folks like investing that can be a part of that, that National Museum of African-American history and culture down there is kind of a pretty big deal. It's an extraordinary institution, by the way. If anybody's not been there. It's like reduced the maze. Yeah, I think I cried through there, but I think that's the major, the major stuff that's happening with the Richard Kemp Center. And I wanted to also remind you, in case you're watching, you'll see, I'll be having a conversation about some of what we just talked about on my television program tomorrow evening live at 525 here in Burlington. So just, so if you wanna come on and talk, or you can zoom in or something like that, let me know. If there's anybody on the panel that goes for anybody, if you wanna just talk about it, if you don't feel like it's compromising you in any way, I understand that. You can't always say what you wanna say. So I get that. And then also on Thursday, I just wanted to let you know that we will be having a conversation about equal protection and as well as reparations, which I don't know whether you noticed it or not, but this is the third biennium that we had a reparations bill die in the house. But there is a reparations task force in Burlington, politically compromised, but here nonetheless. So we'll talk about some of that as well. So I would invite you, again, you can catch it on social media, on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, all three of those. And you can either come to the Richard Kim Center or you can just jump in on Zoom. I'd love to see some of y'all's faces. I really appreciate these conversations. Thanks for... Thank you, Mark. Hey, Tom. Yes? Can I just, I'm not sure if this was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, but there's a concern and I think it falls within the, you know, let's say the nexus of our drafts mission and I know everybody wears a different hat in this room at some point, but there is a major shift. You're breaking up, coach, of the governor's... Okay, please take a look at... What are the news regarding the governor's sole action of the administration? And if you can... Coach, if you can hear me, because you keep coming in and out and it's hard, I get, you know, it's like a little bit of the information. We broke up. Okay. Okay, let me get that cleared up. Okay, go ahead. Is it better now? It seems to be. Yeah, I got past the weird spot near Sharon. So anyways, it's the assault on public education and the Senate has the advise and consent option right now on the new secretary. Oh my God, yes. And this person, oh God, I'm trying to remember. She was, yes, okay, I remember. I think it would behoove everyone to at least take a look at the Digger article. Yes. And then make your own opinion. And if you agree with the thinking of many of us, get in touch with your senator and not suggest, but tell them, because this is an election year, they have an opportunity to be courageous. And if they don't, education in Vermont will never be the same. Got it. Thank you. It is that historic what's going on. Got it. All right. Hey, time, I just want to take that direct. Everybody's attention to that last thing I dropped this. I forgot about that, but it's, we're also looking at Act 250. There's a conversation that we're having about Act 250. I think it's on the 21st, if I'm not mistaken. No, 18, it's the 18th, April 18th, racial diversity and wealth equity, impacts on that Act 250 has had and why we're not having the conversations on Harman repair as we're having conversations surrounding the other areas where Act 250 has impacted Vermont. It's just a perfect example where you got exclusionary policy that at the end of the day ends up hurting everybody. The question is, is what we do about repairing, how do we address that policy in a way where it's actually reparative as opposed to kicking the can down the road? But again, we also have to stay within our lane, don't we? Like we were just talking about. Yeah, education. All right. Thank you all. Anything else? No, so should we just go away? We have no ritual for this. I'll say good evening, since no one has another point. Good evening to you all. I will send you emails. Thank you for your work. This was a good meeting.