 Welcome to the January 2024 meeting of the advisory panel on racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Tonight, of course, we are doing a large amount of the final effort of pulling the report together. But let us start by going Hollywood square style and introducing ourselves. I will start in the corner. Aaron, could you please start with yourself? Hi, everybody. Good evening, Aaron Jacobson. I am the Attorney General's designee to this panel. Great. Laura. Hi, everybody. My name is Laura Carter. I am one of the data analysts for the Division of Racial Justice Statistics within the Office of Racial Equity. Thank you. Witchie. Hi, everyone, Witchie. I do pronounce him his Health Equity and Data Systems expert here as a community representative appointed by the Office of Racial Equity. Great. Tyler. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tyler Allen. I'm the Adolescent Services Director for the Family Services Division of DCF and I am the DCF appointed designee to this group. Great. And Tim's out for the moment, so Elizabeth. Hi, I'm Elizabeth Morris. I'm the Juvenile Justice Coordinator at Family Services Division. And Elizabeth, thank you again for the spreadsheet. Oh, no problem. We were putting it together anyway, so why not everybody benefit? It was great. Rebecca. Hi, everyone. Rebecca Turner from the Defender General's Office. Great. Jessica. Good evening, everyone. Jessica Brown. She, her community member appointee to the panel and professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Great. Judge Morrissey. All right, Morrissey. I'm the Judiciary Designee to this committee. I'm one of the Vermont's period court judges. Thanks. Thanks. Derek. Good evening, folks. Derek Mio Defnick. I'm liaison from the Vermont Department of Corrections. Thank you. Matthew Bernstein. Good evening, everybody. Matthew Bernstein, Child Youth and Family Advocate for the State of Vermont. And here is a community member. And I will probably have to hop off at some point due to some family obligations. But thanks for having me. Okay. Daniel. Good evening, everybody. I'm Daniel Bernstein from the Vermont State Police, ETON Sidekick and I guess the Deputy Director for Fair and Partial Police. Right, ETON? That's right. Now that we have titles, it might as well use it. It took only six months. Jack Rose. Hi there. Sorry. I was getting some fast dinner. Jack Rose. I go by Jack or Jack Willem. She, her, I'm at Department of Corrections. I'm the Health Equity Director there. Sheila. Sheila Linton. She, her, her pronouns, community appointee and Executive Director of the Root Social Justice Center. Great. Thanks. And it's good to see you again. You as well. And last but not least, Reverend Mark Hughes. Happy New Year. To you too. I'm also ETON Sidekick. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance. I'm co-chairing the Health Equity Advisory Commission and I have no official capacity here. But you are here to give good advice and such. Tim. Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. Hey everybody. That was Tim Leader's zoom out for everybody else. Everybody. My fellow hyphenated friend. Right. Yes. Really the hyphen people. Okay. Now you're going to wonder why the agenda didn't have anything about minutes on it. There's a reason. There was a snafu in alerting Orca to the meeting last month being moved a week back. Grant is using that as his method for putting minutes together. So the long and short of it is there are no minutes from last month because of the problem because of the snafu. I apologize for that. Although and Walker tells me that wasn't my fault. I just assume everything is so I'm apologizing anyway. That is what's gone on with the minutes. That's why they're not there. So I apologize. But I also feel like we have to carry on and not spend too much time berating ourselves over that. It won't happen again. I have some announcements. I have only one that I want to. Well, I should go first because then I know Aaron has something she wants to say. Oh, hold on. There's one more introduction. A latecomer. Jen. Introduction. You're muted. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm being late. I just realized that since the last time I used my work computer at home, we had changed our wifi provider. So technical mayhem. In any case, I'm Jen Furpo. She her pronouns and I'm a training coordinator at the Vermont police academy. Great. Thanks very much. Okay. Sheila is the one who always keeps me honest about things because I start at this point turning into Mussolini to get the report done. And Sheila continues to remind me has always done this. That there's this thing called transparency and accountability and stuff like that. But it's really frightening when I get my fascist on it's like, you know, I'm like the train will run on time. Even if it runs over people. And so Sheila, please, when I like get crazy, slap me, or at least electronically. Because that may happen. She's also heard me say this a lot of times when we get to this point in the report, or preparing reports. We will know we've done well. If we all can vote for something more or less. And go home grumpy because it's not exactly what we wanted. So that we should none of us be really, you know, just like outrageously joyous. But okay, I can live with it. And then you go home and you think about who you're going to kill next time and all that, but it goes away. But when we've gotten to that point, we've done it right. Yeah, is not going to be anyone who's going to feel like we've gotten everything here. It's just not going to happen. Is no way that it really can. But I want to remind us of that because that's important. Don't look for being blissful. It's just not real, not real politic. The other thing that I would say is, I think tonight what we're going to do because there have been some requests, given the amount of stuff that came in, certainly at the end, that we spend some time. Putting things together, maybe adjusting language on some stuff and so on. So you, I would say, please let your commissioners know that we are the turnaround. This is going to be really quick. We can have one more meeting on this, which is the 13th of February. Okay. But that it has to be on the 15th. So the poor commissioners are going to have to read quickly it's not going to be so long they're not going to be able to handle it, but I just think you might want to give them a little bit of heads up that this is going to be a quick one. Let's see, I think that's all I had to say Aaron, I want to pass it to you. Yes. Yes. And I mean this is related to what you're just talking about with with having a good discussion tonight about what's going to go into the report and I think building some clarity for the whole panel about what that will look like. And hearing everyone out about their thoughts about that. But we don't, because we won't have final language to then do that part you just mentioned a ton which is take things to our commissioners or bosses, whatever for that quick turnaround that we're going to give them a heads up about. I would ask that we not vote on anything tonight. But instead that that's something we would do. After we have some more clarity about what is going into the report. In other words, it's hard for me to go to general Clark and say, what do you think about this I think this is what this might look like maybe. That's a, that's not a great process. So, I would just ask that we not vote tonight but that we vote at our next meeting once we have something finalized to vote upon. And I'd recommend you using the spreadsheet that Elizabeth so kindly provided for us. That is going to make life so much simpler. It really is that you'll look at it she's actually figured out how many votes per section of the report. It's really quite lovely. You're going to be able to like read over things and just make a little mark so for yourself. It's going to be really kind of I think useful and so print all that stuff out. As you know a bunch of stuff came in today. I will. I have not written yet the entire executive summary for obvious reasons, but we'll do so and we'll get that to you by email. I'm not going to wait till the next meeting. I'm going to get that to you by email. And I intend to do that really in rather short order. Tim, you have a question. Yeah, question and supportive of Aaron's last comment. I wouldn't be able to vote on at least two of the three proposals because I wouldn't have been able to have shared things with the executive committee in my in my boss and executive director's office. So I definitely appreciate Aaron's comment. I'm in the same boat. And then I know you were referencing it a ton, but you're sort of thinking basically we might have something to give them on the 13th maybe that evening and then say, Hey, you guys got I'm just saying it out loud so that I don't because there are minutes tonight. You guys have 24 hours to give me kind of gain a on these other two proposals. Okay. That makes me feel much more comfortable. Thank you. You're welcome, which he. Yeah. And maybe that's something Elizabeth could do for us since it's your spreadsheet. I was wondering if we could be walked through what we're supposed to be doing just like screen sharing be like okay review this and put in this cell this thing right so I just want to make sure that I know what I'm doing. Okay. Can you do that Elizabeth are you comfortable just sort of. I could I guess the question for the group is how what would they like the spreadsheet to result and so I think there's one of two options one everybody could use it for their internal purposes right as they're pushing it up to whoever approval. Whatever individual in this group means, or what I could do is I could add all of the voting members into the spreadsheet so we could utilize a spread like a spreadsheet as a check mark for keeping track of what we have majority of and what we don't have to Does that does that question make sense. Mm hmm. So if it's the if it's the first option then use it to whatever capacities helpful for you as you're preparing. How do you know about it for second I'm happy to do so. Would she you have any thoughts on that. I feel like that's an ask for the whole group. Yeah, I know, but I'm happy to just go with what the group feels. Okay, any with Tyler I'm sorry I didn't see that's all right that's all right a ton I just as I was thinking about this. Obviously Elizabeth prepared this for our own processes and hopefully it'll be useful for other processes and if the group wants to use it all together that's I think great. I just part of me feel some caution around. If we are using it in an organized way outside of this meeting that that might become problematic because they don't think we can have a shared document that we're kind of doing business and outside of meeting so if we want to be using it in this meeting. You know there is some that that's an approach we can use but I think certainly I will want to use this spreadsheet distinctly and separately. As I pass it up through my leadership chain. You know, additional Rebecca. To the extent that my read of each committee's submissions has a number of recommendations. Okay, my understanding is we have to get a vote. I mean that's what those committees came up with was the summary distilling the recommendations. So I think that for transparency sake. I think we should as a panel individual members when we get to the vote. I think we should be voting on each of the submitted recommendations based on the committees what they've set set forward. I can look Elizabeth from that looks good from my end. I just would want the others, particularly the witchy and Sheila, your committee to make sure that the recommendations are worded the way that it's consistent with your proposal. But I wouldn't, I would, I would support transparency and having individual individuals on this panel vote on each recommendation. I think that I think the individual thing works really well too and I can sort of do a master one for voting. And I can fill that out during the meeting next on the 13th. You know, that then then we have violated nothing. And I don't have to put on orange. Okay. Cool. Why don't we start the discussion off with the juvenile justice system. How about that. Everybody be able to pull that one up. I know it's a little awkward. I will I admit that but you know how things are. It's just how it worked. Everybody there. Okay, Elizabeth, you look like you were about to speak. Yeah, I was I was just going to respond to which he's additions and comments and just say that I personally and supportive of the small additions that you made and apologize for your name not being included. Just to There. Yes. Thank you. Rebecca. As a member on that committee too, which I saw your suggestions. I also agree. And also just as a disclosure, I said, I wrote the for the second look committees trapped. I know Tim, you've been asking for name corrections. Repeatedly, I don't want to go that we had a template that that someone gave us. And I assume we'll have the current panel members and we'll go through that in the final draft one terms of accuracy as to them. Oh, gosh, yeah. Yeah, no. Yeah, personally, it's it's the most common misspelling and I often don't ever correct it because it is what it is. Thanks though. Okay. Other people who you know I want to dig on on this the language. Really? Hot damn. Am I to think, let me just ask this. People are really good with it the way it is. Yeah. I'm not taking a vote. I'm just like getting feedback here. Tim. Yeah, I mean, when I when I'm silent, I hope it's not construed as support necessarily, because I just don't know. I get it. Yeah, one thing to note on this just because it's I've said it a couple times this week in the legislature, but the juvenile justice system is aimed for rehabilitation exclusively. And the criminal justice system has many goals. And so when someone has a delinquency filing, the goal is to engage them with services from some of the great folks on this call. It isn't to criminalize them in any way. And so I don't know. And I was just looking through it. It isn't there's nothing in here that I would necessarily change. But having that comment about the different goals of title 33, as opposed to title 13 might be helpful as an educational piece for the legislature. Oh, okay. Or can that come up in testimony? Oh, fine by me. I just I always legislators think when you file a delinquency that you're filing a miniature crime. And that's that's something that I think it can happen in testimony for sure. But for those that aren't doing that type of work every day, it's it's worth kind of just noting that the different goals and I see Elizabeth and Tyler nodding because I'm sure they say talk to people about it all the time. Well, let me raise something because one thing, you know, there's one part of this that was an or or, you know, an either or. So when everyone's happy, I'm like, okay, that's interesting. I looked at the either or section that's point number three. Use best practices for gathering race, race, ethnicity, data and incidents of arrest with youth. That recommends that both law enforcement perception and court perception of the youth is gathered. That's one. Okay, that's, that's the overall sentence or our DAP recommends that law enforcement perception and self identification of the youth is gathered at a later time, or our recommendation is that law enforcement perception of the race, ethnicity of youth and self identification of the youth if their case is filed with the judiciary. So there are several options there. Yeah, which he are you asking us which option we would like to have yes I'd like some discussion on that because we were I mean it's great that everyone likes this but that one is kind of hard to light because there I mean no it's not that's not what I meant. It's, it's hard to just sort of accept it without any conversation because there were certain moments of or or or. So I'm kind of like going with those sorts of things Jen Furpo says option to makes more sense. And let me also just put in here, guys, it's, I should ask Aaron, the chat is not open meeting right. I think it is we turned off the chat at one point. Yeah, all the sea. This was way back. I remember has kind of similar to how we ask that people request a link to this meeting instead of just posting the link publicly. It was really more an issue around like worrying about toxic or offensive comments just being able to Okay, enter into this meeting sphere. What I don't know though is if chats go into the minutes, I mean they would have to be appear in the recording right and then that would have to be recorded by our minutes taker so I think if people have good important substantive things to communicate please do so not in the chat. Okay, great. Just as a zoom thing that when it's when the program saves the files the chat file is saved separately from the recording. So if you were to just watch the recording you don't see the chat. Okay, thanks Jen. We'll pass that on. Thank you, Tyler. Thank you. I just wanted to do a little clarification around the option at the end of that and I'll certainly allow my other committee members to weigh in on on that but it's really there it's a it's a one or the other so there's a recommendation that we would look for this committee to support or not about requiring the gathering of race and ethnicity data where we had some discussion within the smaller subcommittee was what race and ethnicity data we recorded from where and DCF has our own policies that we're striving to implement fully about taking in calls that has us taking in identification racial identification thing that I you know it's the the the caller the reporter would have to identify their perception of race, but then for our own purposes of service provision along the line, we want to approach people using self identified race so for us we think those are both valuable data points to have. But when we gather those data points might be at separate times. The other valuable and this is the other or I certainly let Rebecca maybe speak a little bit more to it is saying when we're looking at the courts perception of race or law enforcement I think both of us are in agreement that law enforcement's perception of race is important. And then the question is at a later date. Is it more important to gather self identified race or is it more important to gather court identified perception of race and so that's the or that's where the or is and I think we could have more robust conversation because that might be a confusing concept. Okay, wrap our heads around it. Thank you, which he. Yeah, I think. I think it's worth asking. What is it that we want because these different things will give us different answers. We know that right now, race and ethnicity is recorded through an assumption based by law enforcement official, even though it's not necessarily clear to everyone outside of the space. And that is what is happening right now. So what we're seeing is like when we see disparities, we're not seeing actual disparities. We're seeing the the how law enforcement officials act when perceiving minorities racial and ethnic minorities versus when we take a look at the traditional data and we have self identifying that allows more room to work with actual data of does is this person a BIPOC person. And I think having both allows us to be able to compare, for example, you know, are what how are the perceptions of law enforcement actually interacting with what actually that the race or ethnicity is so it allows room for extra analysis. But I would be really interested. Laura Carter is sincere part of the, the, the data folks at the office of racial equity. I would love your insight on, you know, what, what do we have the capacity for actually analyzing at this moment. And what is really what kind of answer would we want from the for the administration. I guess you're in Laura you're on. If you know, I am unsure. So I'm going to pass that over to Susanna who I saw on videoed herself or whatever so take it away. Yeah, you know, in terms of, in terms of capacity and build out. This is obviously a piece of the data set that it's going to be really important to us to collect. I know so little about the technology and about the repositories and people who understand it keep trying to explain it to me. So, so how long is it going to take to build these things out. I don't know. I know that we have ADS we're supposed to have dedicated support for the agency of digital services, which is the state's it department. We're supposed to have dedicated support from that department and a very handsome appropriation to that department for technology and assistance to get the setup for the for the for the division. So I think the question maybe to fold it might be, what do we have capacity for in terms of building out this collection system. And what do we have capacity for in terms of regular routine analysis and reporting on it. If the former, then we're going to lean really heavy on our it friends. If the latter, then I'm going to say we're, we're already stretched thin because this, this panel told the legislature, the DRJS needed to be five people and it's three at its current workload. So you all know better than anyone. Kind of kind of where how that shook out. So all of that is to say a lot of talking to say, I don't know bro. Got it. Rebecca. I want to jump further tease out the distinction between the two proposals that I think the panel should consider. The difference is the first proposal is about collecting and perceived race and ethnicity data from law enforcement and the judiciary period. That was a suggestion that I made on the committee. I did not. And I have not been convinced that collecting self identification on race and ethnicity from our clients. Youth specifically is in the context of this data collection point. Will be safely handled. Will there I see I also the purpose. I think the purpose for our that has always been and has established by the legislature to address racial disparities perceived race and ethnicity is required for that. And I think that while other services like DCF talks about collecting self identification data as a need to collect the kind of data to address whether their services are being administered correctly. Right. I see the court delinquency system is fundamentally different. Youth, our clients are being held into those courts. Not voluntarily. There are charges made against them delinquency charges. And so it is a is a fundamentally a different posture. And while the courts are must be fair to have that position, the court or ask our clients who are represented by council to and use. We're not talking about adults to to self identify at this stage. I want to question whether or not there's a need to address the issues of racial disparities. And I question whether or not it'll be safely handled this this panel considered these issues of protection and not having this data collection used as a sword against these particular people against them and we crafted and the legislature adopted our decision to not just have the data entity, not just have the staffing and granted Susanna, not at the levels we recommended, but that there was also critically an independent council to guide the data entity that is now created that that we're still waiting on that council to be created. I understand Susanna. I think it's made up of community members, all of which were the purpose to safeguard the collection of data. I worry that it just a flat request. The recommendation of legislature that would do self identification is too premature. And that's why I do not support that recommendation. I just slipping in here before before Judge Morrissey. What Rebecca said, I agree. I've been there. So I would go with just the way it's the first, the first whatever the first is the first item that I'm losing the ability to speak English judge Morrissey. Thank you so I was just going to say I think that on the. I think that the data collection is obviously critically important. I think that went in fact I think Susanna, Erin and Rebecca and I were all a meeting at lunch where that was the focus was collecting data so we had information when we were making position points that we had the information to back it up. And my concern about anything that when you're talking about having the court collecting data that the information that court has is really only as good as the information coming in. There are many times when on a delinquency case where I never see the child. So I'm not sure how that input like who at the court will be collecting that if that is going to be sort of the point where that information is gained. And the youth can come into the juvenile system and so many different from so many different paths or can be through DCF it can be through the school through truancy cases it can be through law enforcement. And it seems to me that it's the the the intake point is the most reliable way of collecting that information in a way that's systematic and reliable. So I would just point out that having the courts collect the information. Again, I'm not there are times that we we never actually see the youth if they're diverted out of the system if they are going through sort of justice diversion. We never see those kids. So I guess I'm just trying to suggest that whoever's the the the intake person that's we're making the referral to court. I think it's the most reliable way to get that information. Sheila. Okay, I'm going to try to articulate what I want to say but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to put this into words based on everybody's conversation. So I want to say I don't disagree with Rebecca. And what I remember is me bringing up a conversation about this, because I feel like they're like what she was saying is there's a few different data points. One of my main concerns is is that when do we as people of color get to self identify like when does that happen, whether it's a child or adult or when does that actually happen. And are we collecting a data point from the difference between what was perceived by the court or the officer versus what the actuality of the perception, or the actuality of the identity of the person is, because that's a different, I feel like a data point. And that was something that we talked about was there. I'm trying to explain this in a way that makes sense to me it's sort of like how they change the Vermont harassment laws to be perceived or actual. So in the school systems right so if you're discriminating against somebody and somebody calls you the n word, but you're not black. It doesn't matter because that's what they're perceiving you as so it's either perceived or actual is now the law. And so I'm sort of look at this in the same way as an officer, or somebody who's in that power control being like well, they weren't really black or I didn't mark them down as being a Latina, but they are, and then they're clearly by whether their skin color or their speech or their origin or their name or whatever identifiable as there are, there can be lack of truth, based on how people think of things. And so I do feel like there's a risk for especially for youth at certain times to be able to identify and for it become a way of collecting information that might not be viable. But I'm really curious of how we can still collect that and one of the other things as we talked about is the why. I remember that one of the things I brought up was when, you know, if you're signing a like a civil ticket or something or whatever I think you have the they asked you or something about race or there used to be something. But why, like nobody is understanding why you collecting this information and I remember that our depth having a conversation around that needing to be either in law or legislation or something of like, we are educating people. So if we're asking somebody for the collection of race or ethnicity, then we're actually explaining that we're actually doing this because there's disparities in the criminal justice system blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. And so blah blah blah doesn't happen. We are collecting this rather than us feeling like as people of color that is being used against us in some way. I'm just wondering if there's space regardless of what or we go with to put in the why piece of it. And I'm a little bit concerned that though I don't disagree with you, Rebecca, I am concerned of when when youth or anybody will get to really self identify. And we've talked about from beginning to end of those discretion points that there's discretion points all along the way. So we could argue that at the very beginning is the most important the middle is the most important thing as the most important like we all have different experiences and understanding of that. So I think that that's a little bit hard for me to suss out and I'm sorry if I'm not being very clear but I'm trying to convey feeling uncomfortable. Um, with some of the some of the material and potentially the direction we're going in. Okay. Elizabeth. Um, yeah, and this is on a little bit of a, not complete separate topic but listening to everybody's opinions and thoughts also occurred to me and I hate to make this spreadsheet longer. It might be a, there might actually be a potential third option, which is that at this time art of supports law enforcement perception and and and doesn't have an opinion on the second piece which is whether or not to be court perception or self identification if that charges filed with the judiciary. So just putting that out there depending on where people fall in the next month or so. I could live with that. Rebecca, oh, between Rebecca and Aaron, you guys fight it out. You put your hands up at exactly the same moment. Yeah, I think that that language that Elizabeth as you suggest would be fair to because I'd also reflects would actually reflect my position on it which is that I'm still considering it's not a closed box. The only thing I want to throw out there. I feel it is in others. Is that in the juvenile delinquency system by statute. Youth have to be represented are represented by the defender general system to the extent there are inaccuracies on race, ethnicity data, and it is in the best interest of the child. You know, not the best of the clients interest right we represent where the advocate. That is also another way to get that correction in terms of self identity so I just want to put that out there as well these are not unrepresented youth in the court system so there's that way. It's not system is systematic would be in an individual case by case call. Aaron. I really appreciate this discussion because, you know, one reason for my silence when you, when we started looking at this section of the juvenile justice report was, I don't. I feel ill equipped to choose. And the first sentence of this section says use best practices for gathering race, ethnicity data in incidents of arrest with you. I don't, I don't know who's best practices who says, are we saying, and I just don't know the answer to that what is the best practice here. And so, I guess, I would appreciate that third option a little bit to leave the question open around when charters are filed with the court. But then again, I don't know if then we can say that the best practice. So I just, I kind of float that out there as as a question about whether are we also trying to, to tell the legislature that we know what the best practice is. I'm assuming when I see that I'm assuming that people in the field know what that is. I'm just saying that in like the process for with that statement use best practices for gathering race, ethnicity data. Is that just about like, how you communicate with the child, how you treat the child. I don't know what that I guess you just don't know what that that opening statement means, or is that opening statement, referring to one of the choices that we're going to make here that goes into the report. Elizabeth or Tyler do you want to and Sheila is with you on that one. I think Rebecca has her hands up she might be looking. We all probably have thought but Rebecca you got there first. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, what I was going to say and I think that's an absolutely wonderful question Aaron I really like the way that you phrase that and to be frank. I would say that the language of best practices depends on who you're asking because if you ask. Like, you know, I judge that important know not to call on you I know you've had conversation with national experts where they say hands down self identification is the way to go. You're asking you're asking a national center of judgment, right, like, so that in itself is a hard thing to say. I will say from my opinion as one person on the committee that it is this group opinion as to what is the best practice, which is one of the many reasons why this section doesn't out of all of the three different subcommittees doesn't have been very specific recommendation and while why we're having this discussion here. And I'll say this as the non designee person I am very comfortable with, in particular the community members on this group and what their votes are having a huge voice on this on what gets submitted to the literature. And I will just say that. Okay. Thank you. I think Rebecca, and then which she and then judge Davenport. Aaron I would say as part of that committee best practices was not conceived in a vacuum and then footnote for there's a cross reference to our prior reports particularly. There the 2021 report where we really dove deeply into how a data entity should be built, if you recall, and in there we were guided by certain ideas and tool kits and so we cited some things there and so I wanted to give the legislature a reference back to us not making this recommendation a vacuum that we actually talked about a lot of best practices and you can and so you can take a look at those sites there. Good idea. Thank you, which he maybe I got lost a little bit in the thread of all the different ideas. I just wanted to loop back on the possible third option, which excluded the self identification and wanting to make sure that we if we do end up going around where we're saying. Note to that the con that this conversation does not get lost. It needs to either, you know, be in its own paragraph or a footnote or something that describes our argument for against and sort of like what we are wrestling with in this for the legislature to also consider as they read through this recommendation. Let me just make a point here before judge Morrissey. I'm sorry not judge Morrissey just Davenport forgive me. Why don't I just want to mark this so that it's on the recording and Grant will have it. I would really I like that. I think we're not going to get to a moment of here. We never have. We're not buying that we are now. And I would say that a note to the effect of that there has been a lot of discussion about this, but not a lot of agreement. Here are the issues. Like an I love those footnotes that take up a page. You know, I love those I worked on my dissertation so I could have at least three of them. I think having a footnote like that would be really, really good, rather than sit here and think we're going to work this out because we've had this discussion so many times over different things. That's my recommendation. Judge Davenport. I was just going to say in response to Aaron's point and what Elizabeth said that there was somebody from the National Center for State Courts at the. Who is up in Vermont who is in Vermont now and spoke to the legislature this afternoon but also spoke with the court in a meeting that I was in this morning. And then, in terms of, is there a best national best practice out there and the answer I think at this point is no, it is, it is, all of the states are wrestling with us. And, and trying to figure it out but I don't think there's any one state that kind of stands out like, oh yeah they got the right answer and let's follow that. They're all wrestling with it, as well as it's the, the folks on the national level are wrestling with it Department of Census is wrestling with, you know, should ethnicity be a separate group or as it should be, should it be part of the, you know, race and ethnicity all in one thing. So it, I think that we're in a period nationally of flux, and it will sort itself out. And someone will come up with something that everybody goes Oh yeah that was right why didn't we think of that. But I don't think we're there yet. Okay. I would recommend that instead of saying use best practices, we say discern that's in taking into account what the judge just said discern. And I say that because for a number of reasons. Okay, great, I'm glad that's going. But that would be my change would be say discern best practices for gathering race ethnicity at my God, don't lose a tooth people, the fake one screws your tongue up. Use best practices for gathering race ethnicity data in incidents of arrest with us, and just say discern best practices. Remember here. Remember here, we are not writing the legislation, we're making recommendations, and we are not the only people who are going to weigh in on this right. There's going to be testimony. I mean I'm assuming they're going to read it. There's going to be testimony. This is going to go through so many other iterations and movements. I think if we leave it there that would actually work. But it's simple. That's my recommendation. This might be to whatever but is there appetite for amending that slightly to say discern established and emerging best practices because one of the things that I find is some of our institutions have a real adherence to the way things are, and a real aversion to taking on things that maybe are not long practices but might well be that practices and the sort of openness to processes that maybe more community driven which is something we've seen popping up more recently. It feels minor, but I like it. Can you say it again just so we have it on the tape. Yeah, discern established and emerging best practices. I love it. Okay. I just shared this with Susanna separately, but I was also thinking about the importance of being consistent with whatever best practice we decide. I don't know if that would be appropriate to add to the report, but just as a group and just myself thinking kind of out loud that, you know, we want to do our due diligence and collecting this data that it needs to be consistent across whatever systems are trying to apply those best practices to. Okay. We've got that into consistency. All right. Elizabeth. Yeah, I just just to add to that number two does talk about ensuring that there's uniformity. And then number three is the, okay, well, what does that mean. I absolutely agree with you because I think I don't think I know when I've asked different law enforcement agencies. Okay. Where is this like the current life right now when you put down race and ethnicity information form one on one. The youth was arrested five minutes ago. It differs. I technically law enforcement are supposed to send race and ethnicity information to the FBI public for juveniles, if anybody's interested. And I've asked there's like, there's a Vermont person who's attached to that. You're supposed to kind of facilitate that. And I've asked that person in particular. Oh, you know, is the FBI telling law enforcement agencies how they should be asking this? And the response I got was, oh, you have to go ask every individual law enforcement organization and talk to the chief and see how everything and maybe you'll get an answer. Okay. So one of the things that is this is an important point on because this conversation, not just happening in the judiciary spaces, I know Senate gov ops or the gov ops committees have been talking about, you know, imputed versus self reported. And because the, for example, the criminal justice council falls under the purview of Senate gov ops. This is a conversation that they may be having somewhat in a vacuum. We're talking about the exact same thing and the same systems that we're talking about. So in terms of ensuring consistency, I think it's important that we talk about harmony, not just across these relevant systems, but also that the policymakers we're talking to recognize that they're all having the same conversation in parallel to each other. Judge Davenport, and then I want to try to sum some things up here. Just briefly. Yeah, currently the information that the court is getting on race and ethnicity from form 101 that the law enforcement officer. So what I've been told is that it depends on whether whether the juvenile was stopped but was never take, never taken to the police department. So for a less serious crime, they were just cited, right. One is the law enforcement officers perception because the law enforcement officers are trained that they shouldn't ask about race and ethnicity on a stop, because that that could could trigger difficulties. But if the juvenile is taken to law enforcement to the to the police station. They're then asked to self identify in a lot of cases. So the data that we have is mixed data anyway it's not all law enforcement perception. It, some of it, depending on how how the juvenile was processed. Could be self identification. And that gets to the consistency issue that Laura raised. Yeah, I'm going to a big ask here of our GCF contingent. You guys have written a beautiful thing. Can you write one more little thing here that puts these things together, send it to me and I'll send it out. I would really be grateful. Yeah, I have to do that just to be clear, we are changing. You know the title essentially to what we just talked about and then we are theoretically doing the law enforcement perception and then going into the detail of this conversation. Right. And discern best practices that you know they're emergent and established. That's all. Okay. And I'll send it out. Are we cool with this with them. It's okay to say yes or no, you know, okay. Aaron is actively nodding her head. Everyone's nodding her head. I don't know what which he's doing because he's not even here. So I, it's probably warm and cuddly but okay, great. Good. Thank you, witchy. Um, all right, let us move on then to the community safety review subcommittees work. Okay, which which subcommittee, what your committee, like, that's what I thought I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Now we're doing well this is going really really well, actually. Comments. I hope you had time if you need time to look through it let me know now so I can just you know we can take a couple minutes three four five minutes and give you time to look through. Does anyone need that. No, I'm not. Okay. The floor is open for discussion. I understood. So, Jennifer, you had, sorry, Jennifer, you had me to comment and I was hoping you could elaborate on it a little bit and maybe contextualize it for the whole group. So, for those of you who don't know my job at the Academy is largely around training and coordinating training so I'm always looking at this at through a lens of what are we doing that people don't know about. And also, how can we meet the communities needs and expectations with unfortunately almost never getting any more resources to do so. So, what the email that I sent out was based on that beautiful Excel spreadsheet that came out that broke, broke down some of the training stuff pretty, pretty simply even I could grasp it. So like the pre. So what I'm looking at is like the pre training assessment. Absolutely agree that folks need to be ready to absorb a training. But my question is, how do we do you guys know how you would assess somebody's readiness for this training. What are you looking to happen when somebody's not ready for the training, which is complicated by the fact that in order to maintain your law enforcement certification. You have to take fair and impartial policing training every other year. And to be quite honest, there was there's a fair number of things that were on the list of stuff that you all want law enforcement to be trained in doing that we're trying to do and maybe we just need more help to do it better. And that help might not necessarily be having Montpelier decide how to do it being neither trainers nor experts in fair and impartial policing. I'd rather hear from the experts I'd rather hear from you guys on what we could do better and how we could do it better I guess. Yeah. So I'm really glad you elaborated on that my initial gut reaction to that is like. We have it in currently how we're working on this we have neither the time nor the money to dedicate to being able to develop something that like that that you're saying. I think maybe that that ask can be changed to, you know, task consultants with or, you know, dedicate resources to, but. And while Sheila and I and other folks get together and definitely like have an answer for that, that's like, that's a long term project that I don't know is necessarily. We're capable of doing at the moment before this report and maybe Sheila has some more helpful suggestions than I did. And just also before before Sheila Jensen, if people want to see what our curriculum looks like. Public information requests are a thing I mean I don't we are not in the. In the business of trying to keep the public from knowing what and how law enforcement is training is trained, unless it's something that would compromise their safety. So make the asks if you all want to know what we teach make the ask if you want to come and observe training. You know, let us know we can we may be able to work that out. I'll be teaching on the 19th. And then in February 12. Yep. Yeah, and then probably again sometime in April or May, but I'll send you and Dan an email. Thanks, Jen, that would be great. It's, it's not just about what you teach it's from my understanding from you giving a presentation I think in the first year is on the eight hour DAP which was a long long time ago. It was about, and correct me if I'm wrong of who makes up the rules but basically being a lot of X amount of hours for this particular type of curriculum. So, for, for diversity, equity, whatever it's like it was like two hours or whatever that was presented to us back then of having to have this type of training in this field so my understanding it's not just what you teach but it's how much. What is the reoccurring of that teaching and so what I heard was well, each Academy when they come in every year or whatever it is. They do it like once a year, and if somebody comes in the middle or something they don't even necessarily get it because it's at this time of the year so I heard a lot of different re different presentations, but my understanding again is that when we have these discussions it wasn't just about okay we would like to see this what was countered with that is well we only have these amount of hours that are being paid for that is required for them to do this. So there's a little bit of a glitch, I feel like, with being like, okay, we believe they need this type of training, and this type of training will take 30 hours rather than two hours that was originally a lot allotted and then how does that work. How does that actually pan out and what does that actually mean. Yeah, so I think the disconnect might be a little bit of how weird our training system is. So the, the, the place where we have a really finite amount of time is in the basic Academy when our brand new baby cops come to the Academy and live with us for 17 weeks and we try to make them awesome. There's just one tiny drop in the bucket of law enforcement training what folks miss a lot of the times is the mandatory in service training that everybody has to get to maintain their certification. Some of that is stuff that they are told they have to take they have to recertify with their firearms they have to take X number of hours of use of force I don't know how many because I'm not a use of force gal. Even numbered years they have to get domestic violence training odd numbered years they have to get fair and impartial, and then they've got about 30 hours. 29 or 30 hours of additional training that they have to get but nobody says what specifically that has to be it's whatever their agency deems is appropriate so I could say. Okay, I'm Officer Furpo and I really want more training in how to take apart. I don't know tasers or I want more training on how to be a better to better respond to mental health because even though we know it's not law enforcement's best best job to go and deal with that people are going to keep calling us so I'd like to do a better job. So they'll ask for more training there or they'll seek out that training and then then that training counts towards their annual requirement. I don't know if that straightens the fat straightens it out a little bit or not. Yeah, I mean I understand that. Yeah. So, I don't know I would love to give them more of everything. And quite frankly, I think 17 weeks is a ridiculously short amount of time to take somebody who just graduated from college or got, you know, got out of the military and say okay and 17 weeks you're going to go out and, you know, have the ability to take away somebody's personal liberty and all that good stuff. But don't tell my executive director I said that. Well, I guess about, well, actually go ahead and Rebecca. Which is sorry I was going to move on to a different point. Okay, so, so then. So we have the ability to move on to a different point. Jennifer, I, I think maybe it would be awesome if we can get if you're into it. Possibly so it's addressing some language that we can incorporate in this so the asks are more appropriate. Whether that you feel like that is that we need curriculum building specifically with community representatives or, you know, more money or whatever it is that you feel could help us get to closer to what we're trying to recommend. Nobody will know you wrote it. Nobody will know you wrote it. Yeah, I mean I'm happy to take a take a second look and make a stab at it and see what I see if I can, can be of any assistance to this. The other thing to know is that we are in the middle of a giant three year project where we're sending out like right now we're doing job task analysis which is really boring data collection stuff so if you have any connection with law enforcement, I'm looking at you Dan Bennett, and you get a job task analysis survey, fill it out. Right because we're gathering information to so that we know what cops are actually doing so that we can teach them to do it better from the beginning. And that's just step one and it's going to turn into an entire curriculum revamp is the the goal I'm given to understand. And I guess I'll just slide in here if I won't go into it now if anyone has questions about the basic course in Farron and partial policing. Just ask me and ask Dan. I designed it. Some while ago. It goes through Continuable revision. We initially, oh my God, I think we had two hours initially when I started this. And I looked at people like are you high. Yeah, and now we have six and part of that includes a screening of and DuVernay's film 13th, and a discussion of it, which is always a really really grave moment in the in the six hours. So if you want to talk about this. I won't fill up the airwaves now, but I can, I guess is what I'm saying. So if you'd like that, let me know. Rebecca, you keep like having your hand up and we keep jumping on top of this but No, I was going to move off on the subject of training entirely into another section of it. Can we do that everyone. Okay, good, go for it. First Sheila, which he, this is really, really a lot of work so thank you. Yeah. A lot of great information and distilling from lots of sources and recommendations on thank you. My, I just wanted to give a voice to what a ton forwarded to the panel. I had one suggestion. Going to a substantive recommendation change. And that's to page. Whoops. I'll see a patient, the last page, and it's relating to the section recommendations reallocation of responsibilities, specifically the bullet concerning decoupling traffic stops. There's no question in terms of what you're saying to build up to this point, in terms of why restricting traffic enforcement activity is problem that is desirable in terms of addressing racial disparities. The recommendation there was very local. And the legislature should make an exception to towns seeking alternative ways. And I don't suggest changing that I would suggest doing them and and consider alternatives generally to traffic law enforcement. Consider alternatives to traffic law enforcement that do not require police officer initiated traffic stops. Some context to that recommendation is that the legislature already has a bill at the state level not at the town level, considering such alternatives. That is h176 that's entitled secondary enforcement of violations of traffic laws where, if passed, would make it that law enforcement could not enforce certain traffic violations, unless there was a separate criminal violation or some other violation and it's more complicated that so that's called roughly secondary enforcement. A ton forwarded the Vera institutes report on this, where they dropped down with even more recommendations which I don't bother to suggest here, but there are many, and I just wanted to share with everyone that are legislators already considering this at the state level. So, other thing other comments, other comments other concerns. Good Lord, what is your name, Tim. Good, good Lord. It's a long day. It's a Tuesday that feels like a Thursday. I don't know. But isn't it Tuesday. I think it is Tuesday. Okay, good. Which I was just going to let you know, I will send you it's not doesn't have to do the recommendations but I'm going to send you data from CSG and the FBI that's as of last year. That shows crime in some respects trending upwards. One just to note is 166% increase in homicide since 2012 in Vermont. I will send that to you also VSP or, I never know VSP or DPS produced, like a 2022 crime report that's linked online. So I'll send that to you just you have data from last year and the 2023 data hasn't settled yet. I know there's all sorts of stuff that goes up to the federal government and, and likewise, so that I don't know when that gets produced. Jennifer, anyone else on here when that 2023 FBI data settles but probably not in time for this report. But I have been talking about data all week on the crime front. And I will certainly say, anecdotally, our states attorneys and victim advocates are feeling an increase in in in work and in crime in Vermont. That I would be remiss to just stay silent on in any in any form honestly right now. So, and that, like, and I'll keep saying it but that the CRG report shows that disproportionately in the context of this group in particular people of color and women are disproportionately victims of crime in Vermont. Despite, you know, despite the disparities that we know in other contexts so I don't know if there's a place for that in this report but they're kind of ready made things you don't have to add anything. You can just put in a new link for certain things. So I'll send that to you right now, which you. Hey, Rebecca. I would also, I would actually recommend that we do not throw in select data points to this set of recommendations. Maybe there is some other recommendations that you can point to Tim. But there is nothing in the recommendations that which in shield is produced. That's relating to homicide directly. There are I have also been in the legislature today, where data came up on on public safety on a different subject retail theft and data from there, including FBI shows a downward trend over a longer span. So the issue about data and public safety is a complex one and to throw it out without even putting some anchoring with racial disparities as to what and how this fits with specific recommendations I find just is bringing in something that is not relevant for this report. With all due respect, Richie has a 2020 reference to 2020 FBI data in this report. So I just wanted him to have the most recent FBI data from 2022. That's why I brought it up. Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, Tim. Rebecca, thank you for stepping in and keeping it in scope. Tim, I'll look through the data and I will see, you know, if there are things that are relevant, especially, you know, considering if I have old data that I'm referencing that hasn't has a newer data point. Then for sure we should be updating that data. So thank you. Yeah, I'm so sorry. I thought you were you're done speaking my cameras a little lagged and I apologize for interrupting you and I know we can have lots of discussions about data and crime on the on the rise is what we are experiencing and I appreciate your perspective with absolute respect and apologies for interrupting you. Okay. Aaron. This is on a different topic on public oversight. So, in particular, I think in the report. You are in your write up your referencing citizen review boards. And you talk about wanting the legislature to create a model policy for citizen review boards. And I please anybody in this panel or in this meeting correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that legislature would be the body to create a model policy, you know, they create laws. So I'm just wondering about, if you're if what you would be recommending as a model policy, who would be, you know, the body of folks to that you might recommend doing that other than the legislature, like the criminal justice council, a council could be one. I suppose the art app could try to do that. I'm not saying here. No, a ton. I'm not saying, but before February 15. Okay. I'm just throwing out different ideas for like groups of folks who might be could be, you would recommend be charged with that role. And then also just recognizing to I mean, for me, I do question how much direction we would want from Montpelier on citizen review boards, which are just so hyper local and, you know, built from communities up. Just a question about that. I would just say in looking at the list of votes I created, I think that that's one that I missed appropriately because I put in two votes on model policy for citizen review boards but not the overall arching recommendation that a model policy be created to begin with. Okay. Thanks, Elizabeth. Tim, is your hand still up or. Oh no, sorry. Okay. I'm going to lower it. Yes. Okay, I just thought I didn't want to miss you. Anyone else. Okay, listen, let me ask one thing. When you all send these new things to me. Can I ask that you include in the subject line. Today's date. 1924. Because I get so much email from us all that I'm going to get to a point, I'm going to start including things from a report from 1870. I mean, it's really going to get kind of muddy here so I would really appreciate it just in terms of helping me put it all together. If you would just put the date, today's date in the subject line of your email. So that'll like clue me in this poor brain to say hi you really need to pay attention to this one. Okay, just that's all I'm saying. Thank you. All right. Shall we move on or do people have more things they would like to raise on this on community safety reviews. Okay, let us go on to the second look legislation. And I got to find that one. Also bear in mind that we also got some notification through Tim this afternoon about what sas feels about this. We also got some input this morning through Aaron from the Attorney General's office for language that they would like to see included in this. Those were the two big things that I got sent today. Okay. I'm getting a little bit into the weeds with these votes. Do we need a vote. And this is this is a question not rhetorical do we need to vote about supporting second look legislation overall and then going into that so there would be four votes from second look. And the answer might be no. I know I would appreciate that person. But if one person on the panel wants to do it, then let's just do it. So yes, please. Yes, please. Sorry, forgot the please part. But yes, I think if one person wants it, it needs to be done. Rebecca. I'd like to share this much having spent so much time on the second look committee from our depth. My understanding was that we were not going to be able to do it. But we had landed on this subject. As supporting second look legislation. Generally. So to the extent that what Elizabeth is asking and what is unfolding here is a replay of that. I just want to make sure that that is reflected too. I thought that we had already as a panel. And I think that the reason that we were able to do this, I think that the reason that we were able to do this, the reason that we were able to do this legislation is a concept generally, which is why we had developed this committee to analyze it. But Tim is shaking his head. So. I'll. I'll let others share. Okay. Tim. Yeah. So I mean, I've dug through this and both the sentencing commission and in this group with some of our prior. And I think that was the reason that we were able to do this. I mean, I couldn't respond to the most recent recommendation until it was out from this group. But even prior to that. That's not my recollection. It certainly would have been before my time. I did speak with Evan. Meenan who was the prior person here and on sentencing. And he also had the same perspective. And I think sort of regardless. There's something that's before this group. And I think that was also a reason that was clear and with the executive committee and they're not supportive that, nor the bill last year that was referenced. Not in your report, but at the conference that was put on. My sense is not that this is being cut though. By any stretch of the imagination that this is being cut from the and just sort of a roll count, basically, of who's on and who's not, and SAS is not. AG, I guess, is with this language. The AG is not in support of second-look legislation. The AG is certainly in support of the RDAAP doing its work on the second-look subcommittee on all of the different thinking and findings that that subcommittee prompted. And certainly, the AG is in support of much of the concepts that came out of the second-look subcommittee and other related possible reform efforts that relate to sentence reconsideration or people being released before the end of their maximum. So if I had to vote right now on does the Attorney General support S-155, I'd have to say no, but that's a different question from what's going into RDAAP's report, which I would emphasize again is not the AG's report. Elizabeth and then Michie. Yeah, I was just going to say maybe I have an incorrect assumption, so I would love clarity, and maybe I'm getting too much into the weeds because I've blank volunteered my hands to help keep track of the vote, but I was under the interpretation that everything that's been written is going to end up in the report regardless. And it's just going to say enlist if there's any dissent, which would mean to your question, Rebecca, is that my suggestion that there be a vote of who support second-look legislation would by no means take it out by other report, and that's by no means what I was suggesting. Michie. I'm wondering if there was like an accompany to memo of like why there wasn't a support and not that I think we should get into discussion, but more like to know why. Okay, it's an interesting question, and I'm addressing this, I guess, to Erin as representative from the AG and Tim as representative from SAS. Is that something that you all can produce? It's been produced and everyone has it in their email. We would appreciate it if that were included in the report. Okay, as like an appendix. But I don't get fired, yes. I understand. Like an appendix. Erin, is that something that is pop now? Okay. No. Okay. The attorney general statement is what I sent around. That's what I sent to you, Aton, and then you kindly forwarded to everybody. And that's the attorney general statement on second look. Okay. Things change in the legislature. Things change when new developments come up and new proposals are floated. This is what we would like to see in writing right now. My sense, and please correct me, everyone, if I'm wrong, is that we have a lovely written exposition of the second look thinking from the subcommittee, and that we put that in, and then we have a sentence saying the attorney general would like this noted, that they support for what the subcommittee is doing, but does not necessarily support what the conclusions are of the subcommittee at this moment. And a similar thing with you, Tim, from SAS. Not you, because I know it's not you. I know it's SAS. And then put that in as an appendix at the end, at which point it's a rather layered presentation that seems to me to represent where we're at as a group right now. Yeah. That sounds good to me. And I think what would, what will also be communicated that way is that the vast majority of our DAP members support second look legislation. Yeah. Rebecca. I just wanted to follow up on Wichita's question, which I, which was, as I understood it, further explanation as to why SAO and AGs are not supporting second look. And Tim, I understood you referred us, both of you referred us to the statements that Eton shared earlier. Tim, I just looked at the memo that you provided. And one of the questions I had about it, you indicate that the, in your memo, let me pull that up. Right here, ready to go. I can share my screen, too. That's helpful. Okay. I can't find it. Yeah. I can share it right now. I know we all got a lot of emails. I'll share right now. Okay. It's, it's your opening here. Let me go back to you. Can everyone see that? Okay. Yes. Cool. So Tim, my question is, is, is it that middle paragraph and it's around footnote for that sentence? You talk about the questions that are in concerns and you, and you include an attachment. And then you say further, the SAS EC, I'm not sure everyone here knows what the EC stands for. Executive committee, is it? Defined in the second paragraph right here. Okay. Got it. Sorry. And you know, executive director's office. So executive committee and informed, they do not support as, but here's the next sentence. I had a question on, while the opinions amongst individual state's attorneys may vary, the executive committee and executive director's office are not in support. Question is, do you have, can you provide to us the individual state's attorneys in each county's position on this? So I'm not trying to be crass. If that's my job, what my job was, it would be all I did 24 seven in terms of the types of things that my supervisory structure, which I described in a prior meeting is the executive committee and the executive director are the executive committee is elected by the other state's attorneys as a leadership group amongst themselves, which directs the executive director's office. In my conversation with, we meet with all the state's attorneys a couple of times a year. And even then, typically not all 14 show up. But in a conversation with 10 that appeared at a meeting on the eighth, all of those, and I think the folks that were not in that meeting were Essex, Chittenden, and Caledonia actually, Orleans called in. So there was 11 there. But the other 11 were not in favor of second look. But in terms of the nimbleness of my job, I have to meet with the executive committee every two weeks, including this Friday. And so my job would be impossible if I was doing everything that, you know, a tally sort of thing. Before the 15th, I'm happy to share your recommendation with all for the before next month, I'd be happy to share that and get that tally. But the only state's attorneys last year that saw S155, no state's attorneys reached out to me. You know, people, they look at all the bills I sent. Pardon my job is I track all the legislation that affects the criminal justice system at our department. And no one reached out saying, that's a great bill. It never got testimony, et cetera. But to answer your question in a long format, in part because of the nimbleness of this group, combined with what I try to do on the other side of my job, I could absolutely do that. But before doing that, I wanted to make sure it was kind of whatever it was, was what I should send out. I had a pretty good idea from what you had shared last time, which is what I shared with the executive committee, which then resulted in this memo. And this is the memo that we are asking to be included. But it's sort of, I'm not trying to be crass, but it's my common disclaimer that the, you know, individual opinions of state's attorneys may vary, because otherwise I would be worthless at the legislature and worthless in groups like this. I have to have a smaller group that directs my activity. Wishy? Yeah, I'm just, I'm looking at this first concern. I don't know if there are more, but just wondering, just wanted clarification around that question. Are they asking if the DOC or the Vermont du Cheri presented Vermont data to our depth in this, in our discussion around second look? Yeah, that would be one question. And I also have any more. Okay. Yeah, I know there's a ton, all these, I have a whole list of questions. Yeah, can somebody just forward that to me so I can take a look at it offline and maybe try to understand a little bit more. Yeah, but just in terms, this isn't something that's going to change this memo from my perspective. I'm happy to try to get a list of all the state's attorneys, but I wanted to get it off so that this wasn't a drag to what you were doing. Yeah, that's fine. And I'm not asking for a change. I just want to make sure that I understand where the department is. Yeah, I'll send it to you right now. Sure. I can stop sharing, but that was basically, here's the list of questions on the second page, starting on the first page. And the first page is some introductory language. Well, thank you, Tim. I was just trying to get clarity. And again, it's not that the recommendation from second look committee on our depth is endorsing us or is that endorsing actual bill? It's much more broad. I think Elizabeth's Excel spreadsheet captures that. So I would hope that if you have a chance to survey the state's attorneys around the state, because your memo indicated there might be some difference of opinion by state's attorneys. I believe the only one that has indicated support in the past, and it was not support in the way that you might think was Sarah from Chittenden. She had indicated an interest in this topic, not necessarily the bill last year or this proposal, but an interest in this topic and an openness to this topic. Sarah is someone I work with every single day. But she's not in the executive committee, but I still try to, if someone reaches out and said, Tim, I know the 13 states attorneys are feeling this way, but can you also say this? I always make sure to say whatever that is as well, for sure. I can ask her how she's feeling. Tim, I have one point here that I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it. Give me one second, Judge Morrissey. This won't take very long. That's okay. No problem. I'm just having trouble actually with the emoji there. So I know the feeling. The very top, Tim, and I know this isn't you. I'm just putting that out there. But I think it's going to be, I'm taking a wild guess here, but I don't think I'm wrong, that the majority of the RDAP is in support of this. That's why we did it in the first place. We voted on that a long time ago. Was this going to be something that was going to be in the report? So when it says RDAP second look subcommittee, that specificity is somewhat misleading, I find. In other words, we could say the RDAP. So I say that in part because I was on the subcommittee at one point and resigned because I didn't want my presence on it to be seen as support. And so for me, it was a separate group that was working and I wanted to be respectful of that group's identity, which is why I wrote that. No one else wrote that I wrote. Okay. I'm just saying, I think I, what it implies here is that it was three people or four people who came up with some great ideas and that maybe the rest of the RDAP doesn't agree. And I don't know that that's accurate. Oh, and that wasn't my intent either. I know it wasn't. But you feel more comfortable and Rebecca, would you feel more comfortable if I changed, I think it's in that third paragraph or wherever it mentions that subcommittee, if I just said, well, whatever, however you guys want me to put that, I'd be happy to change that because it won't change the substance. Whatever you guys want me to write for that, I can change. Rebecca, do you want to weigh in here? I don't know whether I'm like just, you know, being silly or not. It just seems to me that it. Yeah. No, I thank you, Atom, for raising that. Okay. I just, I think it just says the panel, you just referenced the panel. Yeah, it's the panel. It's the panel. I mean, the United States government, you don't get to, you know, I mean, I'm on the panel and I don't feel that way. And so that's kind of why I wanted to distinguish that. Right. I sort of tried saying it. We appreciate that a majority of the RDAP may submit second look draft recommendations. And that's why I tried to kind of showing that in some form to the legislature. I tried doing that. I mean, I prefer not to change it because to me, it was a group that was working diligently for a long time led by Rebecca. And, you know, I did leave the group, but it wasn't out of this, it wasn't a sign of disrespect. It was more like you guys do your thing and I don't want to be, I don't want to get in the way. I'm also not trying to disrespect your position, but I'm also at the, at I need to represent what the majority of this body as a whole is putting forward. And so I think that it's used, I mean, your letter already makes the distinction that you're trying to make. I think putting it at the top like that is somewhat problematic. So this would be basic in the third, is that just in a third paragraph? It was noted by the everybody. No, no, it's at the top of the letter, the entire top. Oh, oh, the subject already, right off second look. Yeah. So I can definitely change that. That's no problem at all. Would that be, would that be okay? And then leave the body out the way it is? I'm, yeah, I'm not let other people ask answer that. I was just addressing that because I think that that sets it up in such a way that I find that problematic. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Sorry, Tim, for what it's worth, a tons concern just flows to the same in that first sentence. I mean, at some point, it's no longer a draft recommendation is the point is if you want to update it, that's, that's all. Yeah. Judge Morrissey. Thank you. I just wanted to, I guess, alert folks that the judiciary, I think all the judiciary absolutely supports the as comprehensive and as reliable a ways we can collect data as possible. I think the judiciary will not be taking a position on the second look legislation or on the proposal to raise the age for youth coming into the juvenile, the family division. So I just want to put that out there that I don't think the judiciary will take a position on either of those two initiatives. Okay. Thank you, Jessica. Thanks. And you kind of got to this point, but I will so I'll just reiterate it, which is that like every section of this report was really developed by a subcommittee, like no committee had every voting member of ARDAP on it. And, you know, historically, our first report resulted from a vote. And what the majority of people supported is what went into the primary section of the report. And if individuals or, you know, minority groups of people minority in number groups of people dissented, then they could add a report as an appendix, which is what happened. So ultimately, to me, every section of this report, thanks to Elizabeth is going to get voted on. And what is supported by a majority of the voting members of this panel is going to be what's in the report, and should be reflected, similarly from section to section. And, you know, and the AGO and the SAO can if they end up being in the minority can add dissenting statements as we've done historically. Thanks. I agree. Anybody else? Okay. Folks, we've done it. We really we this. Yeah. Good. I'm happy right now. I know you're all looking at me like why is he happy right now? I don't know. I feel like we have really hashed out the major issues that are were in front of us for this particular report. There's a little bit more writing to do shocker. We've got our homework cut out for us. I now can start writing the executive summary, which is also like the preamble. The preamble is like an executive summary. I can start doing that now and will do that. And as I say, I will mail that to you email. If there's no objection to that, I will put that in as soon as I get it done. I'm trying my hardest to now that I've got everything, I can actually really concentrate on it. And because I didn't want to start it when there might be some questions still about some major stuff. And now I know where we're at. So I can do that. Elizabeth, again, you're a goddess. Thank you. I mean, I... God, I can't just do that anymore. But thank you from the heart for that. That's really useful and it's really wonderful. Does anyone else have anything? I have a question on how we're... Okay. So we put in all the votes on that spreadsheet and we send it forward after we read through it. And I know there were questions on the chat. Like, do we all get together to have quorum to vote? Or I'm just wanting to understand the process a little bit? We're going to have to. There's no way around that. That's the open meeting laws. And we will do that on the 13th of February. So we'll get a copy of stuff before the 13th so that we can vote on the 13th? God, yes. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. No, you have to. I have to do that. There's just no way around that. Yes. Rebecca. I have a new business suggestion for... And I don't know if we have any time for next month post-vote. But if we do, I just wanted to suggest that Chief Don Stevens emailed us last month. Yes. Raising some concerns about the lack of recognition and dropping down on the issue specific to Native American community, Abenakis in Vermont. I thought warranted some discussion by this panel. I didn't have to address by email, but I want... Okay, thanks. And I'll beg him to show up. Because I know he's very busy and frequently can't. But I'll write him an abject note. Please. I'll do anything. Dishes. Cook. Something. But yes, I will do that. Erin, you had your hand up. Oh, I just wanted to express gratitude to you, Atan. This has been kind of a difficult, wonky process getting to this point. And it feels like such a relief to be at almost the finish line, but also recognizing that you still have a lot of labor to do to get us to that finish line. And so I really just wanted to thank you and also apologize for my own procrastination on getting you things at the 11th hour. And hopefully we'll do better for our next report in 2026. But thank you. I have no doubt. And thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank you. It's very kind. Thanks. And I think we're where we're at. We need to be right now. I think we're as far along as we can be. And I'm really happy about that. So I guess people would like to go have dinner and things like that. Let's do that formality. This is always the awkward moment. I would entertain in motion. I move that we adjourn. Wonderful. Anyone want to second that? I second. I'm good at that part. Yeah, man. We got second. We got 10th. We got 11th. All in favor. Scream aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Bye bye. Thank you very much.