 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, February 1st and we are continuing our discussion on H546 and actually relating to the risk of justice statistics and we will have a walkthrough of a new draft. However, before we do that I will turn it over to Representative Martin belongs just for an update on discussions regarding a fiscal and anything else? Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, there's a few changes first out to the draft that's coming that Eric will go over. One of the changes has to do with my interactions and knowledge I gained from the joint fiscal office. They're working on a fiscal note. It's not finalized. The information from risk person in the court has been provided to them. I spoke with them a bit yesterday. Stephanie Barrick and they are still working on it and the plan is to get it done by the time this ends up at the doorsteps of government operations. So the figure in there that I've updated the appropriations amount which is a tentative figure but it's certainly closer to the accurate relative to what we put in there. Really it's a placeholder given the process. So take on that. Great. Thank you. Yeah, we're just waiting for part copies for some of us and the draft number. I'm sorry, Eric, what is the draft number? It's for folks who are watching. 2.1. Okay, great. Thank you. So for folks who are watching, the draft can be found on our today's site. It's draft 2.1. And we have our legislative council, Eric. It's Patrick who is the office who just just dropped. Good afternoon, Eric. Thank you. Sure. Good afternoon. Good to see everybody. This is Eric. It's Patrick with the office of legislative council as the chair mentioned here to walk the committee through the most recent draft of H546 which is a committee strike all the second version of the committee strike all amendment which it sounds like everybody has when I am I right that the folks have it in front of them to look at? Yes, thank you. I'm seeing. Not on Zoom as well. Okay, great. Good. Well, it should be a pretty quick walk through because you remember that the primary group of changes the committee already looked at last time and the number of differences between this draft and the previous draft are very few and minimal but I can certainly point the committee in the direction of those. Do you want me to share the screen representative grad for a moment or? I'm seeing people say no. No, thank you. Okay, good. I know these are pretty quick so not one of those ones where you necessarily need to look at great detail language. So I will run through them though and helpful I think when you look at the first change which is on page four line six it's actually helpful to look at the subsection below that as well which is the first section of section five thousand thirteen data governance so they're kind of they're two different topics and there are no changes in subsection A five thousand thirteen but the two provisions are related so I'll mention them both. You'll see that what's going on here it has to do with the division's rulemaking authority and as the bill was introduced the direction that it took was to provide the division with rulemaking authority and not only rule not only with authority but it was mandatory said the division shall adopt rules to establish you know its procedures that are given to it in this sub chapter. The committee then after some further witness testimony some further discussions made the decision that rather than establish its procedures and such things as you know which sorts of data it's going to be collecting those sorts of things from whom it would be collected rather than do that by rule would do that by adopting policies further commit this is the most recent meeting the committee then after further discussion of that and dialogues with witnesses about that I think it became apparent to the committee that the committee the division should at least have the discretion whether or not to do these things by rule or not and that it may the division may upon further review or upon further study may decide that this where it's where it helps to look one paragraph down now because this is one example of this for example in section five thousand thirteen a talking about the divisions how it establishes the data that it's going to be collected again in the in the draft as initially written it said by rule that language was struck last time so it doesn't say by rule but by providing the division with this overall authority this overall discretion about whether to do these things by rule or by policy it's going to apply it into each individual instance like this one for example the the describing what kinds of data it's going to be collected if the division after they've worked on it decides well it really makes sense to do this through the formal rule making process it can has that authority if on the other hand it decides well that we can do this just as well with a more accelerated process by by developing policies on that then it could do that so it essentially provides that discretion to the division in all areas but this is a good example of the one right right below it having to do with what data is going to be collected so that was the policy choice that at the last meeting is that going to move on to the next thing if anyone must there are some questions on that issue next you'll see the next change is also a change from a mandatory to a discretionary decision on the part of the division and this is this has to do with the public records issue that the committee was discussing in great detail over the last several meetings you remember the place that you landed last time in general was to say because remember the bill as introduced said that none of the data and none of the division's records would be public records and they wouldn't be subject to inspection the direction now that the bill takes is to say well we're not going to change the existing law with respect to any given piece of data's coverage under the public records statute so in other words if you know because the division is going to be collecting this data from other state agencies right that's their mission is to one of their missions is to be a centralized location for the you know putting together all of the state and analyzing it so the the policy that the bill takes is say okay well if if the document or the data is covered by the public records act to the extent that it's confidential it's exempt from disclosure as it is you know with whatever that originating agency is then that remains with the data the document when it comes to the division it doesn't change whatever its status was if it was public it's remains public if it was exempt from disclosure it remains exempt so that's the the direction that the that the bill takes there but you remember the next issue was well what's going to happen when if someone does submit a public records request and the again the direction that the the bill takes is that those requests would be submitted back to the originating agency so rather than the division being saddled with all this work like oh we've got all these tons of public records requests coming in hey if it was governed by by the public records act when it came here we'll send it back to whoever sent it but again it's a change from mandatory to a discretionary so that rather than again it's trying to balance I think was the was the goal there and rather than saying you know all these documents will be shipped back to the originating agency that could be a lot of work on their part so trying to balance that out I think was the idea of giving the division some discretion say well if they want to respond to it directly they can if they'd rather direct it back to whatever agency it came from whatever you know state's attorney's office sheriff's agency etc they could do that so I'm going to take a brief moment here I see that the sun you probably notice has just come in like a literally right through the window to my left is clear I'm just going to close the curtain for a moment hopefully that's a little better thank you so that's the sum of that issue I'm happy to pause for a moment in case there's any questions on that point that's not seeing any unless so much or no okay no not seeing anything thank you sure so the next one is the next subdivision down and this has to do with again the the issue of how it is that the division collects the data so it's sort of the mechanics of the process and you remember so this language was new to the last draft but the idea is that the division identifies which state agencies has the the data that is looking for again that comes under the same principle we talked about a moment ago because you'll see that the language there there's no change here but it's just interesting to note this the language provides that the division shall identify which agencies or departments possess the necessary data remember as introduced it's said by rule that's what it said there doesn't say that now just says shall identify so that comes under the same general discretion that you put in in the beginning and say again the division could do that by rule if they wanted but if they felt it was preferable to do it by policy it could make that choice so that it's another example of how that how that discretion works but anyway moving on in in the subdivision you'll see that generally speaking the way it works is that when the division identifies one of these agencies that has the data they will then make a request to that agency to provide the data and generally the language is that when they make that request these state agencies have to comply they have to provide that data you see the new language on line six and seven is a carbon is an exemption to that and that's based on testimony from the defender general that they're in a unique position as a state agency and that they have an attorney-client relationship with their clients and that some data that they would be perhaps asked to disclose would violate their attorney-client privilege and would violate their ethical duty to keep this information to their clients confidential so there's a carve out that's based on and there is language already that's you see cross-reference there in the public record statute that specifically says if it would be a violation of someone's ethical duty on the basis of their relationship to disclose this data then it's already exempt so it's not like this is creating a new exemption the exemption already exists this is just making clear that that the defender general's office would not be required to disclose to make any disclosures that would result in a violation of that that existing statutory confidentiality that they have with their clients so I think after this concern was raised at the last meeting I ran this language by Rebecca Turner at the defender general's office then she indicated that they took a look at it and they agreed that this was satisfactory to them as far as making sure that they would not be put in the position of having to violate their their ethical duty of confidentiality so that's where this language comes from great thank you for that let's see that looks great yep all right moving down then to page six you'll see this has to do with the division's responsibility to make recommendations to other state and local agencies regarding evidence-based practice and standards for collection and you had said it has previously drafted it said not only for the collection but also for the retention of data this language was spotted by Tony Marshall and a couple of other people Tony at the state archivist as potentially if it included the word retention it could conflict with other state law which specifically provides the procedures and processes that state agencies have to go through with respect to data retention you know how long you have to retain it what sort of processes you have to go through in order to develop a data retention policy those things are prescribed by state law and and their their position was it might be confusing for the division to be making recommendations to other state agencies when the state agency might might say well state law governs that we have to do that and and in fact the law specifically provides that their retention procedures has to have to be approved by the archivist so in order to avoid that conflict and I think if I remember correctly the committee testimony was that this wasn't really the purpose of this provision anyway to deal with those sorts of retention policies it's more about making recommendations to state agencies of how to how to collect the data that the division needs you know how it is that that they should gather it and best practices for that sort of collection so that the word retention is scratched or but that the collection piece is retained and that was the original idea of this of this subsection anyway so that's where that change is all about I think that takes us all the way down to uh yeah to the very end which uh representative the law had already mentioned and this has to do with the positions and the appropriation you'll see this is at the very end of the bill sections three and four and I think this is as he mentioned based on conversations that were had with the Stephanie Barrett in the joint fiscal office and trying to determine well exactly how is it that the division is going to be staffed up and you'll see that the uh where it's landed at the moment is that there's one full-time deputy director uh and who is has to be an IT data analyst as well as for full-time exempt IT data analysts at a level to be determined by the division and that language was recommended by Stephanie at JFO to give the division some discretion as to what different level these different staff members are going to be at um and I should have highlighted it but I didn't the the number in the appropriation you'll see is also different I think represent the law and mentioned that earlier it's 960 I think it was 547 or something like that in in the previous draft but uh it's been updated because the stat there's more staff now so that's two more staff people and I think adjusted for inflation as well so that number is has been changed yeah you said that the former number was 547 I think that was roughly it um I'm just wondering because we added two staff and it went down $8,000 no it went it went it went from 547 to 960 oh okay we have 539 on here yes I know it was 500 and something yeah 539 that's right okay it went from 539 to 960 960 okay is that uh it wasn't this price this amount of money is not just for uh the personnel the it's it's also based on uh the testimony of Kristen McClure as far as how much money would have to be uh provided to the agency of digital services for their uh various work it's kind of like overhead essentially uh so just wanted to make that clear thank you so yeah that's all I have for for the walkthrough and happy answer any questions yeah I've got I've got a question on the move it should be directed toward uh $540,000 Kristen came in and said that IT uh digital service and what are us have another $540,000 but we got four non-exempt positions or exempt positions we've added to it and only one is the is that exact position so I thought it under the they're all exempt oh wait let me see yes they're like oh I'm sorry there's a contract your position's been in I remember Kristen saying something like that during the first 12-18 months or a year whatever may have been that there's a lot of stuff that has to take place but what happens after that do we do we keep these positions on when in essence the program has been established or what direction are we looking at going there I guess so so that that information I mean that the um we're detailed information on that should be in the fiscal note when one eventually comes through and and it's certainly something that the Appropriations Committee will dig deeply into but yeah we did hear testimony and I did make sure that that was passed on to the fiscal joint fiscal office that we expected to go from five individuals to two to three individuals after two years that's what I said two to three years just to give you know give them some leeway as far as what they're going to put together in the fiscal note thank you Eric thank you very much yeah sure okay so we're going to turn to Dr. Beaton Estrano-Longo good afternoon good afternoon thank you for having me hello everyone um I'm really not going to be long-winded um as you all probably know the RDAT meets on the second Tuesday of every month um from six to eight p.m. we did not meet in January because everyone had COVID and it made it difficult to figure out how to do a hybrid meeting when actually being in person was dangerous so now that that bill has been signed we're going to be doing things remotely so I say that just to let you know that I have not heard from the full panel I put out an email asking for feedback on this version of the bill and frankly a lot of the people on the panel but not the whole panel have gotten back to me on it and people feel very positively about it so I'm reporting as the chair that the the group that wrote the report on which this bill is based um is really firmly behind it so far uh and that's the main thing that I've wanted to convey the as a member of the panel I want to point out um I know that in the the ACLU testified and said specifically RDAP has called for collection analysis of high discretion high impact decision points throughout the system in three separate reports most um notably we did that in the report of December 2020 which I asked Amber Burke to put in your your website or whatever it is you all have and if you look at that report specifically um at the section page four prioritized list of data to be collected in the juvenile system page six a prioritized list of data to be collected in the adult criminal legal system and then finally the first appendix which begins on page 12 all data to be collected in both of those systems I point this out only to say there's a lot of question that we see or that I'm seeing in terms of where you know what data what data should we define that by rule I'm really glad that Eric Fitzpatrick walked us through this because I just wanted to be able to point out we spent two years coming up with these lists um about high impacts high discretion moments in these systems and there's something here to start with that doesn't mean that the advisory group can't make up new you know decide that there are other forms of data that they want it's certainly not a zero sum game either this or that but I do want I did want to point out to you that there's been a lot of work done on this already in terms of what data need to be looked at and this is from of course a body that is made up of both governmental actors and stakeholders um so I feel pretty clear about that and just feel like that data which was of course part of h317 that list um ought to probably be at least it's something I would like to bring to your attention let me just leave it there um I'm really glad personally that the rule making is sort of more flexible I think the operative term for all of this is nimble how to make this as nimble as possible because one of the things that's become very clear in the process of writing this report is that this body that has been proposed that's now a division needs to be profoundly nimble I mean we're already talking about so many positions at the beginning and that that may change later on I'm personally very heartened and certainly on behalf of the our depth and heartened that that nimbleness is being taken into account by the legislature so I'd like to thank you for that um I think that's really all that I have to say I um want to leave enough time for director Davis to deliver her comments which I think are more focused and given that this will be something that will be within shouting distance of her her view I would really like her to be able to hold forth on that now well thank you thank you very much we we do have time to hear you I know you need to to go as to um but I want to make sure that you that you feel like you can say everything that you'd like to say got it no thanks sure any um questions anything okay can I please welcome director Davis thank you so much for for joining us good afternoon good afternoon I'm just looking for my notes here thank you for inviting me to share more thoughts on this latest draft and thank you to Eric for walking us through it I just had a couple of notes on some of the new provisions most of those notes are no objection but I just wanted to call those out specifically and then I did have a point of confusion actually or a question at the end and one of the provisions I think I missed that part so we'll get to that afterwards uh for the record to Santa Davis racial equity director for the state and let me begin with page number four the provisions that strike out by rule to allow for that level of flexibility I we've no objection to that I think that it also is bringing us closer in line with what we've heard from some of our advocacy community like the ACLU we think about the amount of time that it would take us to go through a rulemaking process and what that would mean in terms of being able to stand up the office and really get solid analysis underway so we have no objection to striking the by rule portion remaining on page four I am also line number 21 copying under the public records act shall remain exact oh yes so keeping the exemptions that are existing over certain records that are being transmitted I think that that sounds fine it's in line with what we've heard from the archivist and the chief data officer so we have no objections to that either I'm on page five now line number two making it such that the transmitting agency would be considered the sole records custodian for purposes of responding to requests for data no objection there I think it helps to streamline the process a bit carving out those roles is going to be extremely important and I wonder just from a data analysis perspective you know sometimes we get data from transmitting agencies and have to do a bit of cleaning up on our end and so when those data are requested presumably this provision would mean that those data unclean are going to be what is provided by that sole records custodian not the version not the resulting version in the division I'm not articulating this well because I'm not but someone understands me I'm sorry to start to interrupt you but we want to make sure are you looking at drafts 2.1 um good because our page numbers are in our line numbers are different than yours so I don't I don't know if it's the draft or how it comes up on your screen it's possible I'm not I I'm seeing a lot of the strikeouts and highlights that you all mentioned so I hope I'm on a draft that if it's not the same at least it's substantially similar so maybe we'll not do line numbers and I'll just try to be clear about describing which section I'm discussing okay great thank you yep thank you so I am moving down to 5013 section A2 provision that reads an agency or department identified pursuant to the subdivision shall upon request provide the division with any data that the division request slash deans is relevant do you all have that in your draft somewhere past draft that's not one draft behind I believe maybe late and a bit short so yeah what would be best for uh we can have our uh the pretty assistant email you the latest draft right now everything yeah she's doing that so if you just grant us for a moment we'll give it to you and make sure you've got the right one there's not been substantial changes but that's that's an important part of that's an important change that you're looking at right now might be helpful to just on that particular line those bracketed phrases that you're looking at that was a choice between requests or deems relevant and the draft that that is current they made the latter choice so that would be any any information that the division determines is relevant etc etc thank you for that I was just going to say that we didn't see a substantial a material distinction between the two so we were going to say no objection to either or no preference for either while I wait for that draft I'm gonna I'm gonna keep I'm gonna take the risk that what I the further comments that I have might still be relevant so I'm gonna oh there you go can I just have you back up for just a moment uh Susanna just uh I mean director Davis I'm sorry um so so the previous page that you were talking about uh just just to be clear uh and you'll see in the change that uh we've given the division uh the flexibility to either do a rulemaking or to just do it by policy just FYI if you want to flag that when you get the the version to see if presumably getting more flexibility is not something that you would uh disparage but I just wanted to point that out thank you representative yes we would agree and and would be quite fine with that so I now have both draft open so that I can compare which means I can no longer see any of you so please feel free to uh interrupt as needed and we are going to make you see her okay so I don't want to be helpful if Eric just did a quick comparison again for you I would hate to take more time doing that I think we're probably I think we're probably okay thank you whatever whatever works for you thank you sure the office of defender general shall not be required to make disclosures we would be fine with that yeah no objection to the provision regarding obg disclosures in violation of 317 so since this draft incorporates the previous draft that I was probably looking at um I'm just going to summarily say that all the other provisions to which we had no objection appear to be included now so from version whatever to the previous version we're fine with and now from that version to this one is what I'm reviewing now new positions we agree and then the fiscal note which has been updated to reflect that great the only other thing that I had a comment on and again this is from the previous draft that's probably moot at this point but there was one provision in there that mentioned creating an active and ongoing here we are implement an active and continuing management program for records and information the support provided by the archivist and abs and the one thing I was just going to say in response to that was that as we consider resourcing that work just to consider that that may require external training for any agencies around the state that interact with the division so just as we think about supporting an active and continuing management program that that may not necessarily be only internal facing and may have some level of external engagement as well and that's where exactly uh director I will tell you right now that is on page number five line number 11 so subsection 50 13 a three thanks just one other follow-up question but so you're not suggesting no any other language you're just making the comment to make us aware of that is that correct just want to make sure correct correct I just wanted to say that as we consider the updated um any updated resourcing whether it's personnel time or financial resourcing that we consider that there may need to be an external engagement component to that active and continuing management program but no suggested language change so so is that I'm just wondering if I can jump into another question if you okay so we put in here uh based on um Kristen McClure's recommendation uh the staffing uh at the uh page 11 on the newest version um one full time deputy director for full time information technical technology data analysts although there's different levels of analysts I understand but we didn't need to get into that um I just wanted to flag that that that that is that is still that that's I think from my perspective the biggest question still on this bill is that the right makeup to get this done but my understanding also is that's really more of an appropriations issue and probably government operations I think our job here has mostly been to get this policy together as much as possible but having said that do you have any input on this at this point I mean are we in the ballpark uh because we still are in the process of getting a fiscal note and if this is something that's way off it's it's probably a good time to at least modify it even though it's going to go through the ringer of the appropriations uh committee's process yes I think that you certainly are in the ballpark and I am inclined to lean heavily on um Kristen McClure's testimony regarding what staffing is needed to maintain a data operation of this size and nature so I would say that if these figures are closely adherence to what she has recommended then I'm willing to I'm willing to take those as accurate but you do raise a good point with the creation of the office of racial equity with the creation of a lot of different and new positions and offices in state government I think it's always really important that we not be satisfied with just just the initial rollout and assume that we've got it right on the front end first time around I phrase that very clunkily but what I'm trying to say is that we'd be willing to revisit and adjust as needed and that may be an upward adjustment or a downward adjustment but given that it's a new venture I would be comfortable if we could at least informally commit to just revisiting the topic in another year and saying did we get it right and if not how can you make sure that the division is adequately resourced? Madam Chair? Yes we would have that option collectively depending on which committee has jurisdiction at the time during budget adjustment at the beginning of the next session that would be that prime opportunity to do that and hopefully you know we'd be getting reports back prior to that time so that as one of the active committees of jurisdiction of the bill at least from the policy perspective we could speak in support of let's say a change if necessary and I see Barb I see Barb shaking her head because she's used to you know helping us through those maneuvers at that time of year. Thank you coach Barbara go ahead go ahead Barbara. I in listening to our last discussion I'm wondering if something stronger needs to be in there because then we're sort of at the good mercy of saying you know what like now we know this and I don't know how each administration or budget addresses that so I wonder about um language of even a organizational functional assessment will be completed with recommendations for future FY funding based on a year of experience and an assessment or something so it doesn't become oh now Miss Davis is asking for something more it's like no this is part of how things work and not somebody going back and saying I need more because you make your best gas at the beginning but you don't know like sometimes you need something totally different that you didn't even count on and so if it is sort of assumed in there that an assessment and review will occur prior to the you know that in time for the FY blank budget or to report back then I think that gives everybody a good common understanding now and it doesn't like leave surprises for later or because it could be all new people and they could be like well what why do you you just got all this I mean I've asked the same thing of the judiciary when they come in and say they want more positions I'm like but you just got more like what do you want more for but um so I think I think it's good business to do that and I don't know that's my thought so the current administration has already got uh Susanna that is basically in charge and then authorize two more positions already one you've already filled correct correct so then a lot of this stuff that what was going over is more data that's being collected and we're we're already collecting a lot of this data anyway the big thing seems to be is the storage of the data is am I on kind of the right format here you know I would probably if I may I would I would say a big thing is the storage but perhaps the big thing is the analysis and what we do with it and that's something that I think that expecting existing staff to take that on without it having been thought of ahead of time in creating job descriptions and hiring for existing people we might end up getting what we pay for so to speak so you know creating a new mechanism through which we're going to do this deep analysis is to some extent going to require new people okay so we're already collecting so now we need more people to analyze the data that's coming in it's on you go ahead first of all we're not entirely collecting there are data if you look at the report that the RDAP put together in 2020 there are data that are simply not collected it's just not done what we got into as we were writing this report was a whole lot of don't we already have we were asking the same questions that you're asking now don't we have people who can do this and the answer after two years is no because what lay people like ourselves think about data management is not what data management actually is particularly when some of the data as the report that you now have from 2020 points out there's just there are holes there are simple holes and some of the data is present but some of the data is not and then on top of that they all the systems that are used in the criminal and juvenile justice systems do not necessarily speak to one another making them speak to one another is a really simple sentence it is not a simple process okay thanks for now I'm madam speaker I mean you've just been promoted madam chair representative goes on thinking in terms of when we got our report. The committee from justice reinvestment to one of their final recommendations addressed what Dr. Longo was talking about related to the holes in the data and that was one of of adjustment reinvestment to findings so you know we've got that other piece of outside resourcing identifying what our DAP had further analyzed and identified so that that's just another point of point of reference and one of the things that we've asked the joint fiscal office to do in their analysis you know of the fiscal note is you know what types of reinvestment might occur as the result of this particular work thank you so so ADS has already stated that in order they can't do the work there well it'll go through them but it's going to be uh some some contracted out correct yeah and that's a lot more money than than what it would normally cost so anyway I and don't misunderstand me I know this is important work I'm just trying to put everything together with all the different different agencies and everything that I don't think data is up to date on anything we do nor is equipment or or what is taken to do it I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this right now that's all thank you thank thank you representative this we we had a discussion earlier today on another project you know in between you know I don't know which meeting I was but but anyways it was very similar because some of these things are so complex and and with the way we've structured the new data system and the actual agency of digital services you know was to hopefully put us in a more responsive environment for statewide data and all of the functionality of the systems that support it then came this weird thing COVID and as you recall when we had testimony from ADS which was director McClure Kristen McClure she spoke directly to the fact that they are outsourcing more work because that's the only way they can get the work of the state completed and some of the the costs that she shared with us included those additional costs again the joint fiscal office is working on a pretty detailed fiscal note for us so we'll be able to look at that piece of the dynamic you know in total so you know just as we continue our discussion but thanks for the question again so I I understand that but currently we don't even have the workforce in this state to handle what what we have now the real question about the other thing is is kind of from the outside looking in on this whole thing or certainly how I look at things is we make it extremely hard for one division to talk to the other to get the information that we need to do or the divisions to all work together to get the divisions that we need because one one branch wants to protect this part of their their information and so on and so forth and that's one thing that since we started with this bill that's and maybe that's how government works that drives that just I don't understand but it makes it so nobody can do their job so you can't or do it is efficiency efficiently to get from point a to point b to just get the job done and that is frustrating on this guy as a legislators mind trying to deal with all this stuff if that makes any sense well actually it does because it's a shared understanding I would imagine it might be said a different way as you go around this table in our committee room but you would find that that's a shared feeling on all of our parts I don't know how many times when I was on different committees over over my tenure you'd go why in the heck isn't this you know health department talking to the you know children's department and talking to and yet all of them would be in the same room at the same time going point and fingers you know like no they've got it this one's got it you know I hear you that's probably the most frustrating part of our job as policy makers is in you know not being able to have a centralized data system that allows us to respond more clearly from a policy perspective you know so I think you'd find it it's shared so let me put let me put this another way that the way I can best explain it in my mind we are complicating this situation so much that it doesn't need to be complicated and it's making it much more difficult much more expensive for ever and everybody and it's it's it's frustrating because I want to get this through and I want to do it as efficiently as possible and have haven't worked without setting up to be a failure and I don't want to get I don't want to spend a lot of extra money that doesn't need to be done but I want it done you understand okay good thanks I'm with it oh too well my friend Barbara I see your your hand is up I'm not sure if that's from before if you want to chime in sorry it was a um it was uh from before uh Martin did you have we gotten into discussion that seems you know that we've laid out what we think well we've laid out what what our DAP that includes a broad range of people in criminal justice and throughout state government and community members have suggested as needed and that we personally have seen as needed over the last several years when we've been trying to make policy without sufficient data to understand how our policies are working that the need has been there and and this defines how to get at the need in the best manner based on recommendations from this group that looked at this all the last year um what we're also doing though is leaving it largely up to the administration we're not telling you yes I have you know we have been here a bill in the bill the five positions but that comes from the administration we're trying we're leaving it to the administration to tell us what do they need to get this work done that we've laid out in here as informed by the two reports from our DAP over the past couple years and this is what we've learned so far from Kristen McClure and I'm sure we're going to learn a lot more when it goes to government operations which really deals with this kind of thing much more than we do in this committee and when it gets to appropriations they're going to deal with us but it's really administration tell us what you need to do what we've asked you to do and this is what we've gotten from them so far so I just want to make that clear that we're not making this part up as far as what resources they need to do the work and actually before I um Dr. Davis if I'm going to give you a chance um do you have any comments here I do actually um I wanted to respond to your representative Gawson's comment because I think it's a great one and I agree whole heartedly we make it very difficult and I say we not Vermont but we government at all levels around the country make it very difficult for departments and divisions to talk to each other in some of the work that we're doing and I find that that's especially true for members of the public if we as people within the system are frustrated with that siloing and that compartmentalization of work then I think what bills like this are intended to address is the perceived opacity or the the maze really that that whole process presents for members of the public and so I see this as a way not only to break down some of those intra-governmental silos but also to provide that added layer of transparency for the people who are um perhaps who have the least technical expertise in this but people who are represented in our data number life so I just wanted to add add that on thank you thank you so the only super Dr. Davis well all I'm going to say is is is a representative Lalonde what he said the current administration set this up brought you on board to go and help develop it and develop this and say what you're you need certainly the current administration has a role already in what they want where this is going and it's just in my mind it's gotten way more complicated than what it needs to be it needs I I wish which is impossible but I wish government would run like a business but we'll figure it out and Dr. Davis I welcome you to respond or or not but just want to make to make sure you're part of the uh discussion what you'd like to be or able to be thank you thank you madam chair I I'm not certain that I am maybe the best person to respond I definitely share the representative concerns about um growing government there's nothing that I wish for more on the planet than for most like mine not to have to exist or work like this to have to be done but I think that as long as we're going to do it let's do it well enough that we then don't have to anymore sorry unstable internet I was saying that um you know I I think there's a good deal of overlap between my sentiments and the representatives but maybe this is part of a deeper discussion about um what functions we we want state government to have and and who should be at the table when we're laying those out I agree thank you anything else thank you thank you very much you are you are frozen that I think and hope you can hear me saying thank you very much for for joining us uh I can't thank you much man great thank you thank you so much so um community members I would like to um keep going and just put on our break because we do have um another witness uh joining us and so Erica rickard who is the project director of Pew Charitable oh trust there you are so thank you so much for for reaching out to um our legislative council Erica's Patrick um and so I'll turn it over to you to describe your role and your interest and curious of how you found out about this bill and very exciting thank you yeah thank you very much madam chair and members of the committee thanks for the opportunity to provide some testimony on the act related to racial justice statistics my name is Erica rickard I direct a project at the Pew Charitable trusts focused on modernizing our nation's civil legal system so we support efforts to deliver more efficient equitable and open civil courts uh what brings me here today is that our research has been following the role that state courts play in addressing racial disparities and uh we applaud the committee's efforts to address the lack of high quality publicly available data on racial justice through this bill and we'd like to urge the committee to consider some of our research findings that support expanding the scope of the bill to include data on civil legal case types such as eviction and debt collection lawsuits in addition to what's currently contemplated so while strides have been made nationally and in Vermont to improve the transparency and the quality of juvenile and criminal justice data civil justice data often remains overlooked and that that lack of data tends to obscure the impact that courts and legal systems have on some of their most frequent users so in Vermont for example in 2019 the courts received over 19,000 civil and probate case filings which is 3,000 more than the number of criminal cases that were filed that year and debt collection and eviction lawsuits are the two most common types of civil court cases that's a number that's grown exponentially over the last 30 years and it's really transformed the business of state courts that eviction cases create serious economic and social instability to thousands of families facing them in Vermont each day and yet they largely fly under the radar due to lack of data there's currently only one state in the country that reports statewide data on filings and outcomes of debt collection lawsuits that's Texas others including Vermont typically aggregate their civil and small claims cases into a single category which prevents policymakers and the public from knowing the scale of eviction or debt collection cases in the state and from knowing who is most impacted research and other jurisdictions has shown that debt collection and eviction lawsuits disproportionately affect communities of color some research has shown that majority black neighborhoods are twice as likely to receive a debt collection lawsuit and to face a default judgment or an automatic win for the debt collector compared to majority white neighborhoods even when controlling even when controlling for income similarly in evictions the eviction lab found that black renters experience the highest average rates of eviction filings and eviction judgments in cities across the country which is almost double the rate of their white counterparts these disparities can serve to further exacerbate the racial wealth gap they can inhibit racial justice efforts but there is a solution if we're able to take case filing and docket data and link it to demographic data much as has been described earlier today that can reveal existing disparities within judicial outcomes and it can also guide decision makers on policies on where to target resources like eviction diversion programs or rental assistance funds and it can also be a critical tool for identifying places to enforce or develop reforms for housing and consumer related policies and processes which can impact racial justice and due process in these simple case types once again we're appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony i've submitted a more detailed analysis and writing but i'm eager to answer any questions that folks might have thank you thank you so much appreciate your testimony any questions i mean martin i can't tell you yeah i was like no i don't think so i'm just wondering if you can tell us more about how texas does track this data sure so uh what what texas did in uh 2013 was to create a subcategory of uh their small claims or their justice of the peace court cases to include a specific category for debt collection lawsuits they call it debt claims and what that enabled them to do was despite having kind of a fragmented uh case management system and fragmented use of technology across the state they were able to have consistent data labels that enables us to be able to tell what a debt collection lawsuit looks like regardless of the dollar amount and regardless of the port house so you can see statewide the number of debt collection lawsuits and what actually happens in those cases and then do do they um also collect eviction data or is no state collecting like how is the eviction data collected and how would you recommend what's your recommendation around that eviction data has been a pretty scattershot across the country we're able to see in some jurisdictions pretty granular level information about uh who is filing eviction cases what the outcomes are but often what it takes is a deep dive from a third party researcher because while that that data may be available it's not generally publicly reported in aggregate statistics provided by the judiciary that rather that information is something that takes a little bit of extra effort to pull out administrative data from what the court's already collected in order to report it publicly that is thank you thank you thank you very much and we will look at your testimony your written testimony and certainly if we have any any questions we'll get back to you and again thank you thank you so much for for reaching out appreciate it take care thank you