 Good morning. I'm Representative Tom Burden. I'll be chairing the House Judiciary for a little while this morning. And we're going to be taking a look at H317 and act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics Advisory Panel. And we have a number of witnesses today, but what we're going to do is start out with an overview of the bill from Representative Lalonde. All right, thank you, Vice Chair. So yeah, I just thought we'd put this bill in context of what we're looking at today. It's kind of the latest bit of this long path that we've been traveling for the last few years related to data in the criminal justice system. I think we've really realized over the past six years that to help guide our policymaking to understand what we should do, understand what's working and not, we need better criminal justice data. And also this really came to light even more so in the work of the Justice Reinvestment II initiative where we had the assistance of the CSG. I'm going to forget what CSG stands for. Council of State Governments. Coach, any event, so we with the help of the Council of State Governments, this initiative, the Justice Reinvestment was done really looking at sentencing, looking at our criminal justice system. And what they found was some real data that we have. So, as part of the bill that implemented recommendations from that work. There was a group working group set up to look at the justice data. It was under section 19 of that particular bill and it was headed up by the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel, better known as RDAB. The RDAB had done some previous work on data. They were created back, I believe, in 2019, and they issued a report in December of 2019 that covered a lot of issues, but one of the things that it did address was the need for better data, not just in the criminal justice system but across the spectrum, looking at racial disparity. They headed up the initiative under the justice reinvestment too. They headed up the initiative as far as looking at further at the criminal justice data needs for looking at racial disparities and issued a report in December of last year. They headed up the recommendation listing out data elements that are important for us to look at to uncover where disparities are rising in the criminal justice system. And also recommending the creation of a Bureau of Justice statistics, which led to the bill h3 17, which laid out the various data elements that we should be collecting. And then laid out a roadmap for a Bureau of Justice statistics. So we looked into, you know, we've been looking at how best to set up the Bureau, and really where we've ended up is we need some more time we need some expertise. We're going to be looking at a roadmap and some other individuals other organizations to help us figure out how to implement them. So this is a bill that we're going to be looking at this morning that. It's the next step really, and it's to come back with a game plan for how we're actually going to implement the Bureau of Justice statistics so I'll stop there but I would assume that representative Christie might want to weigh in as before we get started with the walkthrough with Eric. I don't know if that's true. Rep. Chris you're not but I. Coach did you want to say a few words before we do the walkthrough. Mr chair and fellow committee members and guests and witnesses. This is an exciting time. As we know, anytime that we embark upon new paths and new territory. It isn't as smooth sometimes as we would expect on the front end, but I really appreciate the work of our DAP. Members and the partners that have come on board as well. And this is truly an instance of partnership. So I am just adding that I'm grateful. And it's a proud moment for Vermont. Thank you. Thank you coach. And next we will hear from our legislative council, Eric Fitzpatrick will do a walkthrough of the bill. Thank you and good morning everybody. This is Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council for the record here to talk with the committee about a new proposed amendment to h317 which, as I'm sure the committee remembers is the legislation with establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics is represented the lawn just described in more detail. The new amendment, the gist of it, the proposal I should say, I probably will recall that as the committee has been talking about the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics during the session, one of the main pieces of conversation and discussion, not only among the committee but among the interested parties and the people with expertise in this area has been where, where to situate the Bureau, where in state government or where outside of state government should it be a standalone entity should it be a quasi governmental entity that's been a great point of discussion and I think there've been a lot of different points of view on that but the prior versions of the both the bill has introduced and the previous version of the amendment you may recall the bill has introduced situated the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics in within the agency of administration. So it was within the AOA alongside the Office of Racial Equity. So it wasn't it wasn't under the Office of Racial Equity but it was alongside it in in the agency of administration. So what was as I say the bill has introduced the next proposal that you saw in the last version of amendment had the Bureau of Racial Equity within and supervised by RDAF, as representative Alon said that's the racial disparities and criminal and juvenile justice advisory panel, and that is a mouthful so we say RDAF to shorten the length of my testimony considerably. So the, that was the next proposal that the Bureau would be within RDAF and supervised by RDAF. And now this proposal, as I say then so that this discussion continue about what what made the most sense and their positives and negatives about where where to situate the Bureau. And it turns out, or what seems to have been the case is that there is not yet consensus on that point. So there needs to be further discussion analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of placing the Bureau in different possible homes. And so that's what this amendment does essentially it perpetuates this discussion allows it to continue for a bit longer during the interim, so that RDAF will be required to submit a report. In November, that will specifically recommend, you know, where, where this Bureau ought to be situated or at least analyze the positives and negatives of situating in different places. So that essentially, as I say, permits that discussion to continue and hopefully reach consensus so which hasn't hasn't been attained yet that there've been obviously many different possible points of view on this with their own ups and downs. And this essentially establishes a study that RDAF would conduct to analyze the question a bit more and come back with some recommendations next year. So that's the big picture. The specifics of it I can walk through are pretty straightforward but I assume that the best approach is to everyone has the document up the proposal of amendment on a separate screen so no need to share my screen or, or I can either way whatever whatever your preferences. I don't hear anybody saying they want the screen share so we'll go without it. Okay, sounds good. Sounds like a good approach. So, moving into the language of the proposed amendment then the report that I just described from RDAF will come back to the House and Senate judiciary committees, and the idea is to report on the creation as I just mentioned of a Bureau of racial justice statistics, the idea is we've also discussed many times is to collect and analyze data related to systemic racial bias and disparities within the criminal and juvenile justice systems the report is due on November 15 of this year 2021. The amendment itemizes several issues that the report needs to address the first one is the one that I've just been talking about which is where the Bureau should be situated and where where's the best place to locate the Bureau. In terms of government structure that so when considering this the report has to take into account the you know the sort of balancing the necessity for independence on the on the one hand. But on the other hand there are damages of having a pre existing bureaucratic structure both in terms of administrative support and historical knowledge that sort of thing. So the report has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of these possibilities of being either a standalone body or being housed in state government. So it gives the, the, the, the interested parties with expertise in this area, time to think more more deeply about these issues and come back with a recommendation later this year. The report also has to provide some information about staffing. So the Bureau to how and to what extent the Bureau should be staffed. What should be the scope of the Bureau's mission. In other words, you know what is its actual purpose and fundamental goals in terms of the data collection. And specifics also subdivision for how the Bureau how the Bureau should collect data and analyze it. And lastly the best best methods for the Bureau to enforce its data collection and analysis responsibilities in other words, you know how do we make sure that the people and entities that are supposed to provide the data comply with the Bureau's responsibility to collect it, you know, make sure that they're able to receive the data that they need to conduct their work. Moving on to the next page there also there's some specifics about who, who are deaf and our depth is the, is the entity working on this report but there's also other entities with whom they are asked to consult with for purposes of putting this report so the legislation requires them to consult with the Vermont crime research group, the National Center on restorative justice, UVM and any other entity that would be an assistance. And it also provides that in addition to consulting with it requires that the assistance be provided to our depth for purposes of this report for from both the Vermont chief performance officer and the Vermont chief data officer. Because as state employees it's permissible to require their cooperation as opposed to independent groups, they can just require consultation you can necessarily require their, their assistance. So that is the setup as far as other parties with whom the with whom our depth with consult and get help from as they're putting this report together. Subsection C specifically mandates that the reports going to include proposed legislation, so that hopefully obviously they have something to work with because we've had several iterations of this amendment that the committee has already seen as an our depth is already looked at and reviewed so they won't be starting from scratch they'll be able to make whatever changes they feel might be necessary. Using the proposed bills they looked at already if that would be helpful. The per DM which is the reimbursement compensation of our debt members as they're putting this report together is what's covered in subsection D. If you look at Subsection D it's got two different pieces. The first sentence is just boilerplate which I'm sure you've seen many times. This is that's the language that's used whenever we're putting together a summer study committee or interim work group that's organizing an issue with a report back, and that just provides that, you know, members who aren't state employees or because the idea is that state employees and employees of other organizations who are paid in their professional capacity. While they're at the meeting, I don't need to be sort of getting extra pay for purposes of attending a meeting, but those who aren't, those who aren't either paid as state employees or aren't paid otherwise paid to participate in these summer study groups should be able to do anything. And that's what 32 VSA 1010 the statute referred to in that first sentence provides for. It's a $50 a day per DM for and again, it's for folks who wouldn't otherwise be being being paid or compensated for that day when they attend the meeting. So that's boilerplate language always appears in these studies, study committees that first sentence. The second sentence is specific to this bill. And not as perhaps familiar to the committee but it's I think certainly something permissible for the legislature to do, which is to say that, again, the per DM under statute is $50 a day, but that doesn't mean that the legislature can't authorize more than that if they choose to. And that's what the second sentence does and says that you'll see when we get to the next section that there's a $50,000 appropriation to the Attorney General's office, which is where our DAP is situated within the Attorney General's office. So that $50,000 is intended to pay for this summer study committee and any other associated expenses that they have with that, including as you'll see contracting with the University of Vermont internship program. So what this sentence says that we're looking at now in subsection D is that of that $50,000 appropriation the attorney you're providing the Attorney General with the discretion to provide more than the $50 per day per DM to any of those folks who are not state employees who or who do not otherwise receive pay or compensation for attendance at our DAP meetings or participation in the workgroup. So if they're not otherwise being compensated. The idea is provide the AG with some discretion to dip into that $50,000 appropriation and pay them more than the $50 a day per DM. So that's what's going on with that second sentence provides the AG with that discretion to use some of the money in the $50,000 appropriation to pay more than the $50 per day. So that subsection E that exactly it's exactly what I just mentioned that is the appropriation. It's for fiscal year 2022. And from the general fund $50,000 is appropriated to the Office of the AG to complete the work described in this section so in other words to develop this report to the questions to work with the other groups identified earlier and make the proposal to the legislature. And again, as I mentioned specifically provides this is lines three to seven that some of that $50,000 can be used to contract with the UVM legislative internship program for purposes of providing support to the panel so they can get support from the UVM internship program with some of that money, some of that appropriation also. And the last sentence you see is language that is identical to what's in the RDAP statute when it talks about membership of the RDAP panel is just repeating that same language and saying interns for the panel shall be drawn from diverse backgrounds to represent the interests of communities of color throughout the state. So that's language that I'm sure is familiar to the committee as well we use that for to ensure diversity on various state boards and panels, and it's repeated here for purposes of the interns that you've authorized the the panel to contract with that UVM to provide support. Okay, so that's, that's the walkthrough and that's the big picture, it's as I say it's the essentially from 50,000 feet it's the idea that that there's still discussions and attempts to achieve consensus on where the Bureau of racial justice statistics are is best placed, and this provides RDAP and other entities whom they consult with with some time to think more about that question and come back to the legislature with a report. Next fall. Great, thank you Eric, any questions for Eric. Martin. This is not so much a question for Eric but I just one additional piece of information I think it's important for folks to understand is a little bit more about who RDAP is, and we have the witnesses that we have today are all members of RDAP, but there are also several who are part of the administration I think that's important to note because is in support and voted on Tuesday to support this concept this bill that that we we actually went over with RDAP, but it includes represent from the Department of Children Studies, Criminal Justice Training Center. These are folks that are not here today, the Vermont State Police, the Department of Corrections, and, and usually the director of racial equity though not part of our DAP at least not yet is also very involved so I think that's pretty important to understand and then there are five community members as well that are appointed by the Attorney General. So it gives you a concept of who RDAP is. Hopefully that gives some comfort level for folks as far as understand where this came from. So I'll turn it back over to you. Great. Thank you, Bob. Yes, good morning, morning Eric how you doing. Good, how are you representing us. I have just, I'm going to throw a two part question out at you probably never saw this one coming. That's being the new guy on the committee here. Where did the term Bureau come from versus department or office and do we have any bureaus in the state of Vermont that are not federally assigned. Yeah, to be honest, that was just a matter of coming up with an appropriate seems like an appropriate way to describe them it's not a right or wrong but really where it came up with was I came up with. I based it on the federal Bureau of Justice statistics which I figured since there's a BJS in the, in the Department of Justice that the proposal was to come up with some, some entity that was the request I should say to come up with some entity in Vermont that also dealt with racial or also dealt with justice statistics specifically racial justice statistics. Modeled, modeled it on that. So, I don't know whether or not the second party or question whether whether there's other bureaus and state government in Vermont. But again, as far as the name of it goes. That's certainly the committee felt like a better name was a better choice that's certainly fine that was just the meeting something that's the sort of encapsulated what the what this entity was doing and facing it on that federal agency. It's not a big sticking point obviously but I just associate bureau with something not a federal level versus something directed toward the state of Vermont that's why I kind of caught my attention but thank you anyway. Yeah, well you were right that's exactly where it came from. I've got one question Eric to in a sense on the chief performance officer and the chief data officer I don't think we've ever talked about those in this committee or I don't remember talking about them. And I can, I can guess what the chief data officer does you know I can probably come pretty close but what does the chief performance officer do. Actually, the coach. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you do you want to do this. Actually, actually, I was going to defer to you so you do it so please do. The chief performance officer by name is Susan Zeller. And she is charged from the administration with all of the reports that we get quality of life reports in Vermont, all of the statistical data that is compiled by the administration. And so, for example, when we ask a question about how well is X program doing her job is to respond to that question with the data that supports that an agency or program and how effective it's been. And that's it. And the, I think some of you might remember several years ago, when we started utilizing results based accountability. That came out of that office out of Susan Zeller's office. So you could see where the performance piece. Great. Thank you. Yes, yeah, that's that was great. Thank you. Thank you for that real quick. Just real quick, the data the chief data officer did help quite a bit on the report that our depth put out last December, regarding the bureau and such just just FYI. She has been involved in this year. Great, thank you. And if no more questions for Eric. We will move on to judge Greerson. Good morning. Chair acting chair, acting chair acting chairs that is that the official title acting chair. Since it's coming for you judge that's the official title. I'm glad someone else answered the question about chief performance officer because, because I did not know the answer either so thank you representative Christie. I'm going to record Brian Greerson chief superior judge. And I guess I'm actually wearing two hats today as the chief superior judge but also as a member of the our depth committee. As representative LaLonde indicated the witnesses today, at least this morning are members of that committee and I've been on the our depth committee since its inception. And I would have to say that, you know, after kind of a rough start, this, this committee has the panel has really developed into a cohesive working body, and I think the best evidence of that was the report that was issued of last year in which really is driving this bill and in the the recognition of the need to set up, whether it's an agency department or bureau, an entity if you will, to gather data that we all know from certainly my time in this role as chief superior judge and testifying before committees. Sometimes either the lack of data. The, the reliability of the data is equally important in the source of it so I, I, as certainly as a member of the our depth committee and as I indicated in our meeting the other night when we were reviewing this bill for the first time. I viewed this as a really is a logical next step in the process that our depth started two years ago. Not only a recognition of the need for data but what we tried to identify in a most recent report and was reflected in an earlier draft of this bill. The type of data that we, we hope to gather in and from what entities but we really need a centralized entity to be able to gather this data so that the data is useful not only for our depth but obviously for the legislature and in making decisions around legislation. I think representative Christie and along have done a good job and laying the background as to how we arrived at this point with this bill. And I would just indicate to the committee and to the chair. I support this as a member of the our depth panel. And as it is a matter of policy of course the judiciary doesn't take a position but we recognize there is a need to explore where this entity is best located, whether it's within an agency or whether it's standalone and I think this bill identifies the issues that we need to work on to make that decision. So that in brief is my comment on this bill and we do support it. Great thank you judge. Any questions for judge Greerson. It doesn't look like a judge. Thank you. All right, thank you. And next we'll hear from Rebecca Turner from the defender generals office. Good morning. Good morning everyone. Thank you. Vice chair bird. So my name for the record Rebecca Turner pellet defender supervised attorney for the office of the defender general. Also here wearing two hats. I'm a member of the panel the defender generals designee on that panel and like judge Greerson I have been on that panel since the beginning and my testimony this morning should be short. I fully support this latest draft I bill in it. It reflects accurately our depth suggestions are that has met two times in the past month. Actually, and for about four hours to discuss these latest draft language and it reflects the discussion concerns and recommendations there so we, this is a big and important step the data collection project, and as judge Greerson said this proposal is the natural next step, which gives us more time to go back and dive deeper into the issues. That can make and and provide implementation legislation for next session. Importantly, it provides critical support and resources so that the working group within our depth can consult with our event experts and data collection, both within state government and outside, but also most importantly, it can support the community members on the panel to do this important work. I, I see the deadline of November of this year for this report and appreciate why that deadline is there and appreciate that that is a recognition I'm trying to get this front and center for next session and our depth understands that having worked on similar large projects in a short timeframe here it's about six months. Speaking most recently on a judiciary subcommittee. We can probably expect this working group to meet anywhere from two to three to four times a month, probably two to three hours at a time. And that is extraordinary amount of, of time and effort and energy requested of community members were not otherwise compensated for this work so I appreciate that this latest draft provides that kind of resources to support that as well. I understand to the organizations that are listed there as as experts that we may consult on this project. I understand they shared with us that they do not expect to require additional fees or things but that it may occur and so this also builds in sort of some allowance that that need my rise, but in any event and conclusion. I fully support this bill and the defender general does as well. I also was in communication early this morning with our chair, Dr a ton that's right and long ago and he cannot be here today, but he authorized me to share with this committee this and also supports this bill, because he sees that it accurately reflects the panels, major concerns and recommendations. So thank you. Great, thank you Rebecca. Any questions. Thank you. Next we'll hear from Evan meeting from the State's Attorney and Sheriff's Department. Good morning. My name is Evan meeting I am here on behalf of the Vermont Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs and I am also the one I want to welcome you Evan I think this is your first time. Testifying before us we did meet you a week or so ago came in to say hello but but welcome. Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm also the department's designee on our DAP and at the last meeting, the group considered a version of this bill that was very similar to the one that the committee is considering this morning. And on behalf of the department, I, I voted to support the bill with some changes that were made, and, and which now appear in the bill before you and and the vote from our DAP was unanimous. And so I would expect that the group would support the bill that you see. Before the vote, I did express some concern or really threw a question out for the group to consider which was, does the group possess in house the expertise necessary to answer item number four on line 19 of page one. The fact that the group provided was that they felt with the assistance of the entities identified on page two, we would be able to have something productive for this committee to consider by the deadline of this coming November. And so with that, you know, the, the department shares that optimism were hopeful that we will have something productive for everyone to look at and we'll be able to accomplish the assignment that this bill asks our DAP to complete. And so unless there's other questions I think that summarizes the department's position on this bill. Go ahead Tom you're doing a great job. I was, I was going to turn it over to you. Yeah, so anyway Maxine is back and I will step aside for our chair. Well, thank you. I'm not seeing any, not seeing any questions. Folks jump in though. Not seeing you. I don't, I don't think so. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I believe that these David share but I think he's jumping back and forth between different committee mirror meetings. I guess I will turn it back to Tom to you and coach and Martin. Yeah, yeah, since. Thank you Maxine since David's going to be a little late he's in another meeting right now. And when he does, when he does join us we'll get him here but we'll get him on to testify but from here I guess I would ask like Maxine just mentioned if, if Martin had anything to add or, or, or coach at this point. Yeah, just jump with kind of process and then coach may explain a little bit why this is really, I think a critical bill to get done. So my, my understanding my hope is that we will, we will take the language that we have in 317 and put it into the miscellaneous judiciary bill. The biggest concern is, is getting appropriations the time to look at the $50,000 appropriation and get that approved in. I'm hoping that by the end of the day this committee can give the thumbs up on this portion of you know on on this language, putting it into the judiciary committee bill. We can also even before we vote out the judiciary committee bill which I know is on the agenda tomorrow. We can at least give appropriations a heads up that you know here's this bill it's going to be in the judiciary committee bill it has an appropriation in it so you can look at it as soon as possible. So that that's the process issue as I understand I want to, I'm seeing thankfully the chair is nodding her head that I had that I think right. But that's the process issue, but I'll turn it back then over to coach as far as you know the, how this is really an important bill. I need to unmute first. Let me start again with, you know how this is all come together. And the fact that when we bought the proposal to our DAP for their original review, and many of you remember historically that there was a wide variety of options, as far as placement. And we all had different opinions of this new entity, being the bureau. And we all had different opinions as well, even as our committee. So when we got to that version where it appeared to make sense that our DAP, you know, was a very suitable home. We started to look at how could we make this work effectively within their abilities. So strengthening, you know that by looking at the membership of the bureau, having the specialists, having the extended number of data analysts involved, which we saw in the bigger bill originally. We're very clear and you can understand why. And in addition to that, one of the other things that became very clear was housekeeping pieces, for example, the fact that, although the Office of Racial Equity has been participating at all of the our DAP meetings, since the office came into existence. It wasn't named as a member. And so that's a housekeeping thing that we can correct before the end of this session, actually, because it's, it's, it's a naming and designating that person back to the our DAP. And so that would be one of the key housekeeping pieces. And in addition, during the discussion, it became fairly clear that if we added two additional members to our DAP from the community with special skill sets. So we would actually ask our DAP to look to the BIPOC community and disenfranchise community around the state for highly qualified members to be those two people with a background or specialty in data, or gathering or analysis. And so there's a, there's a very hopeful thought, thoughtful process in all of these pieces that have come together. And I guess, I guess where we're at right now is everybody knows how important data, you know, is to our work, you know, here in judiciary, because in formulating our policy, those questions that we ask about, Well, what about this? That is usually in part of that data gathering and analysis. I heard a really great example from one of the experts when we were discussing this, and she called this process of gathering data, like a lake. And her metaphor being a data analyst is like a Fisher person. I corrected myself really quickly. Thanks. So the Fisher person, you know, would go out and if you wanted a bass you'd use a certain lure. You know, if you want to northern pike you use a different lure. So that's the, you know, a very interesting metaphor for data gathering. And I do that in deference to our colleague Martin because I promised him I'd stop using as many car metaphors. So I really enjoyed the data lake metaphor. But in getting to the end of our discussion, a couple of the other comments that you heard from the witnesses around the equity in selection. You noticed that there was a specific request in the internship program to ensure that students who normally wouldn't be selected to do these kinds of projects, these summer work projects of support would be encouraged with intentionality. So it's it, it affects a lot of pieces of Vermont and it's really exciting that we collectively as a committee have this really cool charge that we're working with. So I guess that would would do it for me madam chair and vice chair and representative alone. Great. Well, thank you. I love all of your metaphors cars, fish, it's great. So, so it sounds like this language what you're referring to is housekeeping would go into s 97 the miscellaneous she's judiciary bill is separate language along with along with 317 and and that it makes sense because also that's where the elimination of the sunset is as well, that sunset so I do think that that s 97 is a good place for this, for this language, and as well as taking out this piece and sending it to appropriations, assuming we approve it as a committee. Realism coming coming late to the testimony but it sounds like there's been quite a bit of agreement from all of our, all of our witnesses. So, Tom and Martin. Yeah, I had a question for who can ever answer it I guess, and now isn't there X amount of dollars in the general fund for things just like this. I think every year there's there's so much money set aside for studies and that that type of thing and commissions or panels or whatever. I think that's right. I don't know what that amount is and, you know, available, but but I that I've heard that same thing in the past. Right now what's going through my mind it. I'm pretty sure there is, and it just seems like it wouldn't be that too long of a discussion I guess you could say to do something like this hopefully. And I can check with JFO I do think it's almost like a reserve that after the budget is closed that the JFO looks to looks at what needs are still outstanding. I think that's correct but but I'll double check. Right. Thank you. Sure. And I don't see David here yet, Madam chair so. Right. Let's see. Should we up here is actually great. Timing is everything. Yeah, right. Speaking of Shelby. Wouldn't that be nice. Welcome David. We're just been waiting a little bit for you and I, are you ready when I give you time to catch your breath or. But you're, but you're up when you when you are. Okay, I can go sorry I'm like, couldn't leave. No worries. But yes, for the opportunity to testify and I'm sorry I haven't been able to listen to the discussion so far this morning but certainly the office supports the, the bill or the amended bill. As it's been presented this morning and I'm looking at draft 6.1 here. I know it's been our practice to largely be differential to panel decisions were one member of that panel and want to respect their process that being said I think that this does reflect that process and I think it's an important step forward and we certainly support it and we are happy also to be supportive in the administrative sense with respect to fund disbursements that may be necessary. To have a high quality work so we are supportive of it and I was the only thing that. Oh, I was just thinking about like our when our not substantive when our finance folks are looking at it, I just want to make sure that they have action. And so this just occurred to me as I was looking at the draft in subdivision. I think it may be useful to just have a sentence in there and if others disagree with me on this I will defer it may be useful to have a sentence in there just saying the funds can be used for not not only for the per diems in the internship program which are specifically provided for, but could also be used for contracting with experts or some some phrase like that just to make it very clear because I think that's the intention and intention to be stated plainly so we don't run into any issues down the road when our folks are our finance folks are trying to make sure they're acting within the provisions. Madam chair, actually at the RDAF meeting that was a comment, and we can defer to our three witnesses to concur that that's what I had actually heard to. So, putting that that caveat in there is important. Thank you. Yes, I was going to give give the witnesses an opportunity when, when David is finished to weigh in on on the addition of that of that language. Thank you, coach. And that's my that's all I have to say we're supportive we appreciate the work that's been done on it and happy to support the panel in this work and happy to take questions and. Thank you very much. Thank you, Tom. Moving on. Let's see page two line seven D. It lists people to consult with and it says any other entity that would be of assistance to the bureau is that covered there or does it need to be covered stating that there could be an expenditure I guess. My concern is really about stating explicitly what the money can be used for not just who it could be used for so. Yeah, I would just out of an abundance of caution but if others who are more expert in you in the use of funds disagree with me I'll defer to that but I just don't want to run it down the road where it was like, clearly we meant for this to be used to allow for it wasn't in there so you know I don't want to run into that situation. Sure. Thank you. Certainly appreciate that. Martin. Yeah, I guess I'm just wondering. Yeah we could certainly put some language in but you know we're we're on a tight timeframe. I'm just wondering why on page three line to where it's talking about the funds to complete the work described in the section as you know if it connects up to the consultation component. If that is is sufficient I think that that's fairly broad. I mean it's whatever is necessary and that was the concept and, and I don't know that I. I mean we needed to put in the bit about the legislative internship program because that's a little bit different, but I didn't want to start having like a list of what those items might be, you know, because then it starts. When you have a list that the concern is well if something's not on that list, is it excluded, you know what what if they need some copying services or just basic stuff like that. I'm curious if it's just sufficient to have that broad language. I certainly take your point about the tight timeline and yes I think that it can and should be interpreted that way and I'm certainly and we are establishing right now a record that should be interpreted that way which, frankly, will be helpful down the road if there's a dispute about that and I'm willing to go to bat so to speak for that interpretation inside the office so if I think that can be read to be sufficient and if that is necessary, we'll we'll we'll work with that and make sure that there are issues down the road. I appreciate that because well I'm sorry Maxine you're just gonna. Yeah, yeah, I'm wondering I guess I would turn to Eric in terms of drafting getting a new draft of this language with the, with the language that the Attorney General's office needs how Eric how is that doable for you and and if so when I think it's doable I don't see, I agree with representative the law and I don't see that there's a need for it, but I think it's pretty clear, but I suppose you could say line three instead of a portion you could say portions of which may be used to contract with entities for support and to contract with the University of Vermont legislative internship program if you felt like you wanted to be having abundance of caution. Thank you. David, does that address your concerns. That would yes. And I think that the open language open ended language in line two in particular about completing the work sort of covers administrative costs clearly. So that would be great but again if there is a timing issue here will work with what we have. Thank you. Martin. Yeah, I, yeah, I think that that's fine I mean if that could be put in and turned around because I was actually hoping to even make a motion for a straw poll that we approve this so we can get it in front of appropriations but I suppose we could do that. First thing after the break maybe. If that if that works with you Eric. Yeah, that's fine. Yep. If that works, chair, you know because because I was planning on making the motion just so we can move it on to appropriations so they can start looking at it. Thank you yeah I, I think if we could wait the 15 minutes or so that's probably better so everybody has a language in front of them and knows knows exactly what they're, what they're voting on, and I certainly will extend an opportunity to our other witnesses to get in on on this issue if, if they want. But if not then I'll take that as. There isn't any opposition. Evan. On behalf of the Department of State's attorneys and share us just just for the record, I interpreted this bill as allowing the Attorney General's office to use that money not only for the internship program and to supplement the per diem, but to also really spend it for any purpose that was encapsulated in the bill, but we have no objection whatsoever to making that more explicit. So that's fine with us. Thank you appreciate that. Anybody else. Yeah. Hi, thank you, Rebecca Turner. I also wanted to confirm that that would all would not be a problem I read the language similarly but clarification is fine it certainly is the intent or was the expressed intent during the discussions over the past two weeks with our DAP that the money, or the funding not be just dedicated to per diem, but to any other costs to support the effort. Thanks. Go ahead, Martin. This way, the more I think of it in the last 30 seconds. I think it's actually probably smart to put it in there because that will help appropriations understand what we have that money in there for so so I think that that it, we may not need it here but I think it will help smooth the path and in appropriations. Thank you. And I'm sure I would agree. The more clarity for our colleagues upstairs, the virtually, no they're virtually upstairs is important. Okay, good. Thank you. Right. So I'm not seeing any, any other hands or any. Bob, is that are you. Is that your hand up or are you waving. That is my hand up. A quick question as a new person here. The law pushes this trouble through whatever else. I guess you're going to have to explain to me exactly what we're voting on. And what's happening with this amendment so that I know the time or after the break or whatever. How about if you do it now so that way during the break folks can can think about it and see if any questions come up. If you could explain not not make the motion but but just explain where you're where you're going please. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So, as I think we've already done I don't know if we've taken straw polls but we've taken different parts. The divisible parts I guess I could call it separate independent parts that we're going to put into them this miscellaneous judiciary bill. For instance, we had recommendations on, I believe was a juvenile justice issue from the court, and we heard kind of separately about that I don't know if at the end of the day we took a straw poll on that part or not. But it's kind of similar, you know this is a separate part that we want to put into this miscellaneous bill. And that's actually why we hold the miscellaneous bill towards as long as possible because we have things that kind of come up along the way. The other the other part that which is separate than 317 is is ensuring that the office of the director of racial equity is part of our DAP that's something that came very late that we really only learned in the past week that we can put in. But we like to, I think, with those separate parts. Make sure that we're trying to reach compromise you know reach reach a point where everybody's on board because usually the miscellaneous judiciary bill doesn't have controversial bits in it I mean that at least in my history here. So it's really trying to make sure everybody's on board is everybody comfortable with this part before we put it into our, our larger bill which which has several components. Did that, did I cover it, or did you have more to add Maxine. Bob was that that help helps to a certain extent I guess I have to two quick follow up questions here and I apologize for not being familiar with the whole system here. Maybe if you could just briefly explain to me what the miscellaneous judiciary bill is. And are we looking at this amendment and so on so forth are we looking at pushing this into a summer study from what I can assume to come back on about I'm sure to have another report for this this committee or what direction we're heading in here. So, so I think it's, it's a little more, I'll, you know, I'll defer the chair on on just the findings is generally the miscellaneous judiciary bill but as far as what we're trying to accomplish with this is it's this next step. As I explained earlier in this long path that we've been taken to get to the point of really gathering this criminal justice data. And the, I think a key component of this is in the bill it's on page two align 11 and 12 is we're asking for draft legislation. So it's not just like a study that you know here's kind of what we think we want to know how to implement. So in the earlier version of this 317 that that the committee has looked at previously for for the this bureau, whatever we end up calling the entity. But but this is all right well we've really found that there's not agreement as Eric was saying, as far as how to exactly put this into place where it should go etc. So it's not these folks who have been dealing with this for the last three years to take this next step help us take this next step and and give us the draft legislation that that we will then turn into our to a bill and hopefully you know next year hopefully will make will make the next step on this as well. I think it's better. So what I'm hearing is, is, there's going to be further discussion and length on 317 and next year good Lord willing to Creek don't rise. We're all going to come back and we're going to sit down and go through this a little more thoroughly shall we say. Yeah, absolutely I mean we will do our full due diligence next year and see if we agree with whatever these folks come up with. It's a, it's a pretty good organization to be considering it because it has all of the folks that we would want to weigh in, and they are a pretty well functioning group. I will add also that it's a public that they have public meetings. And if you want to, or anybody wants to keep track of what's going on, they can get on the distribution list as far as invitation to go to that. I've been going to him and I probably intend to continue to go to him to hear what's happening and represent Christy has as well. So just so you know, I mean there is that work that's going on but it's being done in public over the over the off session and people who are interested and can certainly follow what their work is. But having said that, it's, you know, the bill hits, you know, first of all, they're not introducing the bill, whatever draft legislation comes it will go to the Judiciary Committee here and in the Senate. And somebody will have to take that and ask for a, you know, make a bill request to have that and then there's also going to be the decision of whether the Senate takes it up first, or if we take it up first next year. So those things are down the road issues, but we want to get these experts together to tell us what is the best way to implement this and give us draft language to do it. I appreciate that. And Maxine, thank you because I do have, I will have some questions and thoughts on this. Absolutely. And do you want me to explain the miscellaneous judiciary bill what they, what, what it, what that concept is or are you very helpful to me anyways, yes. Right. No, absolutely. So, every, every year there is a miscellaneous judiciary bill we used to call it the technical judiciary bill but there's a little bit of substance in it sometimes but what it is really is it is a placeholder, a compilation of often unrelated pieces of legislation that address issues that have come up. Maybe in the summer in the fall that are not so technical that legislative council can can fix them or something like that where they really do need a legislative fix and it's different. And so the fixes could come from the judiciary from other parts of state government the administration. And as, as Martin said we hold it until the, until the end in case, in case something does come up that didn't make it into another bill let's say or we, you know in this case 317 did not make crossover. But so the Senate really couldn't take it up so by putting it in the miscellaneous judiciary bill, the Senate can consider it. In terms of the miscellaneous judiciary bill and in touch with my counterpart in the Senate Senator Sears as to what is going in there. There's something that that the Senate would like us to put in on our side so it's it's really an ongoing conversation of addressing of addressing generally uncontroversial needs as they come up. And usually it's it's one body starts it and then the other continues. In this case it was the Senate. Does that does it help. Thank you. I don't have the time obviously and I'm striving to learn as I go here and I don't know if a lot of you have forgotten that as this new, new folks come in here but I appreciate both yours and the representatives alone to explanation thank you. Yeah, no no thank you and please keep keep asking those questions and Eric I see your hand up. Yeah, I just thank you represent grad the only thing I would want to add that I think is also useful to know is that many other committees have miscellaneous bills every year. So it's not a not an unusual thing for the judiciary miscellaneous bill there's a miscellaneous tax bill every year there's a miscellaneous education bill miscellaneous motor vehicles bill. To deal with the exactly what you just mentioned all those smaller issues that come up or technical things that our office or others discover so it's just helps to know that that's a common practice throughout all the committees. Thank you Eric yeah that's a really important point thank you. I appreciate that and, and we will I think I forgot this afternoon or tomorrow we, Eric will do a walkthrough of the entire bill because we, like, you know, we keep on putting a little part into it but it's been a while that we've actually looked at everything it at the same time. Thank you for your patience. No, absolutely no thing. Thank you. Okay, great. So, let's come back at when we come back at 1030. And we'll take this up.