 Okay I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the regular meeting of main meeting of the advisory panel on racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. We let us start with the introductions. I will go around my screen and if you would please do a brief introduction when I call your name that would be great. Julio. Hi Julio Thompson, Attorney General's Office of the Rights Unit. Thank you. The next person is a number and it is so small I doubt I'll be able to read it. 802-5059147. Hi it's Robin from Carm Research. Oh hi Robin. Hi Judge Greerson. Yep, Brian Greerson Chief Superior Judge. Welcome or good evening everyone. Professor Crocker. Hi I'm Abby Crocker at the University of Vermont and the National Center on Restorative Justice. Thank you. Loretta Sackie. Hi Loretta Sackie from the Council of State Government Justice Center. Thank you. And another phone number 802-22. Oh dear god. 802-272-5298. Hi this is Judge Davenport. Hi Judge Davenport. Jeff Jones. Hi Jeff Jones. I'm at large state's attorney's appointment. Monica Weber. Everyone I'm Monica Weber and I'm the commissioner designee from the Department of Corrections. Karen Gannett. Hi everyone I'm Karen Gannett. I'm the executive director of Crime Research Group. Jessica Brown. My name is Jessica Brown. My pronouns are she and her and I am the supervising attorney at the Chittenden County Public Defender Office and I am appointed to the panel by the Attorney General's Office. Thanks. Sarah Friedman. Hi everyone Sarah Friedman with the Council of State Government's Justice Center. Susanna Davis. Hi Susanna Davis Racial Equity Director. Thank you. Sheila Linton. Sheila Linton she her pronouns pointed by Attorney General Panel Member and representing the Root Social Justice Center. Rebecca Turner. Hi everyone Rebecca Turner panel member Defender General's Designee and Hey Ton did you see Sheila's comment in the chat asking? No I don't have to chat up I'm sorry I'm doing five other things right now. Yeah she was just asking if it's recorded this is being recorded. Yes it is. Yes it is. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Yes. Tyler Allen. Good evening everyone Tyler Allen I'm the Department for Children and Families Designee. Chris Loris. Hey Christopher Loris Research Associate with Crime Research Group. Representative Lalonde. Sorry slow to the draw there. Martin Lalonde on the Judiciary House Judiciary Committee just sitting in to to watch what's going on thanks. Elizabeth Morris. Elizabeth Morris I'm the Juvenile Justice Coordinator for DCF and I am just here as a member of the public. Captain Scribner. I am Captain Julie Scribner Vermont State Police. I am here as the Designee for Commissioner Sherling Department of Public Safety. Great. David Cher. Hi everybody David Cher assistant attorney general he him pronouns representing the attorney general's office. Thank you. Chief Stevens. Don Stevens Chief of the Nalhegan-Ebinaki Tribe. And last but not least I want to introduce someone I did not get to introduce last week because of time and the fact that I was very scattered and that would be Evan Neenan who is our new representative from the what is it the Department or the Office of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's Evan. The Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's and good evening everybody. And he will be the new Designee from that area because as we all know James Pepper has gone on to the cannabis what is it cannabis control board I believe so that is sort of an announcement and sort of an introduction. I'm Aitan Nasred and Longo. I chair the panel he him pronouns and appointed by the attorney general. Can we move on to the minutes please. We have two sets of minutes we have first of all the ones from the 13th of April and then secondly the ones from last week from our special meeting on the 4th of May. Let's start with the 13th of April. Are there any corrections errata you know things of that nature that people want to bring up that we need to look at. I'm looking for hands. Okay. Oh Sheila I see you now. Thanks Aitan. I just wanted to say that specifically something that I was quoted in here about highlighting the visual visual representation. I specifically was asking about the branches in the government and so I just wanted that to be specifically highlighted because that was what I was really speaking to of what branches exist in the government and where we would put those things in and what does it really mean for them to be in that branch was really I was communicating. Thank you. David do you have that since I don't see Olivia? I don't I guess yes I have it I'll be taking minutes today I just noted down that correction and yeah thank you. Thank you. So I'll move I'll move that we adopt them stop the minutes of the April meeting. Anyone seconding? I can second. Thank you all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed. All abstentions. Motions carried. We approve the minutes from the 13th of April. Let's turn our attentions to the minutes of last week the 4th of May corrections or amendments. Sheila. Just the correction of the clarification that we I think Rebecca originally named it as a study group but then we agreed that it was a working group but it's not clear and I just wanted to I guess it's a question and a statement if that's what we mean by study group and working group is how we change the language and if so if the minutes could actually reflect that so it's not people are not thinking that those are two separate entities that we're talking about. Great point. Thank you. I think we were that that was a change that we had decided it was not a study group that that was a misspoken term and that we were going with working groups so David can you yeah all correct and I think at the moment it was said it was study group and then it later got changed so I think the minutes accurately reflected that oh but I take the point that now looking back at it it's confusing so I think it's fair to correct to have a consistent in the document. Okay I remembered there being a moment but or just to convey that that's what took place it just is not clear that that took place so that's fine that says study group and then working group it just is not clear that that was changed. That makes sense I will I will add that in to reflect that change clearly. Great. Thank you. Any other corrections? Okay we need a motion. I'll move the adoption. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? All abstentions? Motion's carried. We approved both minutes of the 13th of April's meeting and 4th of May. Announcements? Any announcements? All right. The one that I have to make is Judge Grierson has to leave early and I also think given the draft that I was sent by Representative Christie at about 4.30, 4.40 this afternoon that is more approximate in terms of our work in terms of what needs to get done more quickly. I think the first issue is something that is going to go on for a lot longer than this meeting whereas talking about the proposed working group needs to happen very quickly so I want to switch the two items on the agenda and begin with the discussion of the proposed working group. You all have that I sent it to you as I said around 4.40 this afternoon. That's the only announcement I have. Okay having said that and seeing no one else's hand up I'd like to move on to the discussion of the proposed working group. I hope you have had a chance to look over Representative Christie's email to us. Susanna Davis has noted on page two just a couple of small points. Line one the inserting of the word of in fact after the four purposes of developing the report required by subsection A. The other point that she made concerns with line nine that the chief performance officer is retiring on the 21st of May so in other words a week from Friday and there's some uncertainty as to who will be taking that roll over and so on. So that's something that she will look into and I will keep in touch with her about that. So those are just two points that need to be made. I think the other point and Professor Crocker if you can help me on this um page two we're asked this working group of the RDAF is asked to consult with a um that's line four Vermont crime research group line five the the National Center on Restorative Justice. If I take this um an email I received I mostly from Bobby sand correctly that should be struck and it should be directly with both you and he is that correct. Yeah that'll just help avoid any issues with the the Center funder. Okay so we will uh suggest that it is uh Professor Abigail Crocker and UVM and Robert sand VLS. Great thank you very much. Thank you. Um and those are the comments that I wanted to start off with and otherwise I wanted to open this up to a general conversation. I'm hoping you all have had time to read it should I don't know David is this the moment when someone should do a read through? I'm certainly not skilled with that sort of thing. Eric Fitzpatrick does it rather elegantly but um I think that would be reasonable. I don't know if I don't want to volunteer people except I'm going to try to do it anyway right now if if Representative alone is on and listening he might be the person best placed to walk us through this. So I take it uh Representative Christie's not here? I don't see him. I sent him the link but I I don't see him. Okay um I'm I'm trying to bring it up right now and I'm happy to do so but you're going to have to bear with me for one moment. Sure. For me to find the dot here we go. No I'm looking at the wrong document I apologize. It says at the top general number three five six two four two. Yeah no I've I've printed it off I've looked at it and I've just uh have it right here in my hand right now. Okay yes so the idea of this uh proposal is is rather than creating a different working group it it would be assigning the already in existence our DAP which we have another bill which will extend the life of our DAP uh but it is assigning the task to this existing group which makes this a lot easier to get through this late in the session. So that's that's really the the construct of this of the whole bill. So it's asking for a report it's in the date is November 15th and the reason for the report coming at that seemingly long way off but not is that the Senate's deadline for bill requests drafting requests is the 1st of December and Senator Sears would want to see whatever comes out of this effort in time to actually make sure that a request goes into our legislative council for a bill based on the work. So the the next section or the next bit of the bill is is talking about what the scope of the work is supposed to be and and that is taken actually right out of an email that we received from Rebecca Turner I think actually that coach may have received it from Rebecca Turner and had our legislative there's a horrible feedback coming through here. Can people mute if they're not speaking please? Let's just okay let's try it again. Sorry representative. So why don't I just walk through what those points are and that's usually what kind of detail. So the report is approached to address where the bureau should be situated which is something we've been talking a lot about I know that our DAP has taken into account the necessity for the independence and the advantages and disadvantages of being a standalone or independent body or being housed in state government. How and to what extent the bureau should be staffed? What should be the scope of the bureau's mission? How the bureau should conduct data collection and analysis? And the best methods for the bureau to enforce its data collection and analysis. So that is a pretty broad scope obviously but it's building on the work that our DAP certainly has been involved in the last two years so hopefully some of those it's revisiting ground that you've been trotting for the last couple years. The next part talks about who the our DAP should consult with. Is it probably not necessary at least the B1 is probably not necessary because of course you can consult with anybody you want but I think putting it in the bill is helpful to kind of point the direction for folks who are looking at this bill. The B2 though is actually a little more forceful. It is not only saying to consult with but to have the assistance of. So we are essentially mandating or the administration to offer the assistance of the Vermont Chief Performance Officer and the Vermont Chief Data Officer. So it also explains that in subsection B that the report should include draft legislation. I really like to have that kind of thing in these reports because too many reports are looked at and are perhaps read and then set aside but when we actually ask for draft legislation I think that really helps just like I think the last report really offered a path for us to proceed in the in the legislature with the language that ended up in H317. So the members of the panel the last couple sections talk about the members of the panel who are not otherwise state employees being able to receive a per diem. And then the section B is seeking an appropriation of $50,000 for the Office of the Attorney General to to have some control over because they are the entity under which our DAP has been formed. To complete them and it's fairly broad it says to complete the work described in the section which can include money being used for the University of Vermont legislative and internship program that probably was not completely necessary to have that language in there because but it's contemplated that if there's additional work that needs to be done outside the purview of our DAP if there's a need for assistance this would provide some funding. So I do have one big question that hopefully somebody might be able to answer this evening and that is if anybody has any further justification for that particular figure that I picked out of the air a week ago and if there's some concept that getting some consultant to help would cost in the range of up to $50,000 if anybody has any kind of clue on that or could help. The reason I'm asking is this would help Representative Christie and I to sell this concept of the appropriation to our Appropriations Committee. They usually don't just give us money because we say it's a good idea we actually have to provide as much support as we can to you know and if we don't we'll do our best. But that's it I'm happy to try to answer questions although this did come really primarily from Representative Christie but but I have been helping out a bit. Great thank you. This is the part where we have at it all right let me start then. One of the issues that I have is I appreciate that November 15th is put forth for the benefit of legislative council and another for them to work on the bill but I or the bill that we hope will come out of this working group. I also have to say I feel like they need to be involved with the working group as it goes on. I think bringing giving them work at the end is I particularly since this is quite clear about providing draft legislation and I think I I kind of I mean it says the report required by subsection A of this section shall include proposed draft legislation. I want the people who do that there. So if I could comment on that I'm not we can't we can't dedicate from my understanding I can double check and look into this. We can't assign a legislative council to a working group or to an entity such as RDAB. And if if if we were creating a working group that had legislators involved or was primarily a legislative working group then we can. But having said that certainly the representatives who are working on these issues like Representative Christie and I we we have entree into the legislative council throughout the year and although the legislative council could not work directly for RDAB you know they do work for the legislators and I would assume that Coach and I will be following the work and can do that. And of course we have some very good attorneys who do a lot of good drafting for us in David Shear for instance. So he volunteered me for something I'll volunteer him right back. David's smile is somewhat distressing but yes. Thank you Evan. Yeah I had I had a somewhat related concern to yours Eitan and I think I think that if we knew what type of legislative bill proposal we wanted to put forward I think there are some folks who in this group that could help with the drafting. Don't worry David I'm I can help you with that if if you get dinged with that task. But I had a different concern related to the request for proposed draft legislation. If this gets passed this version of H317 gets passed later this month we'll have roughly six months to to accomplish this task. And just earlier today I was reading the report that this group issued in December on December 1st of 2020 and it seems like what this draft of H317 would require us to do is what we refrain from doing in that report. I think in that report we the group even specifically recognized that its expertise fell short of how to actually perform this type of data collection and analysis. So while I certainly appreciate that there's folks in the state like the crime research group and the University of Vermont and you know professors Sand and Crocker whose expertise exceeds mine having just read that report I'm a little concerned about our ability to to now put forward draft legislation in six months when it seems like the group wasn't able to do that at the time it issued its December report. And since I'm new maybe maybe those concerns are not valid or they've been ameliorated in some way but that that was my concern when I saw this request for draft legislation. Rebecca. Thanks Evan for your your comments and welcome to the panel. Looking forward to working with you on this project. So you're right in terms of that report was written basically confirming that we had reached our max expertise on this subject and here you go. What's different about this version what's critically different is where I see the language suggesting well no providing for both with the financial numbers and listing the exports that are available to us to consult and those who must consult or with us and provide support. We didn't have that and to the level and degree that we would need we didn't have that available at the time we were doing the report we were at a different stage. So the next step and I certainly I certainly agree like I certainly I haven't gained any additional expertise in this area except for you know yet more months in this in this topic and debating it and and and talking with others on this panel and about this project but it is truly I look forward to and to learning from and hearing from these experts who who I in this panel have gotten to know over the months and and that's why they were identified in this bill or because we saw them as the experts who could get us there. I do think that six months is ambitious but doable. I appreciate what Senator Sears is doing with that date. I think that that indicates that the legislature is serious and we need to get this before them at the beginning of the session to give this the maximum chance of actually passing next session. I I I feel pretty comfortable with what I'm seeing there short of what Representative Lowlawn just invited from us here tonight which is to supplement the figure the number of the financial figure with something higher if if we can show a need for it but otherwise I feel comfortable with how this is drafted. Okay thank you. Uh I yeah I I guess one of the things I would want to check in about here uh I guess crime research group Karen Robin are you all on board with this? Hi Eitan. I actually think a working group is a good idea to kind of figure this out and walk through what needs to be done. There are long lists of data in that bill all coming from different sources. I've had some ideas about potentially doing some data mapping and figuring out where the data live if they're available where we can get it and so I think some of this is I think it's yeah I think it's the right way to go. I think it makes a lot of sense. Okay thank you. I just wanted I mean we've I just wanted to check in. Thank you. Uh Professor Crocker. Oh god yes. Professor Crocker. I just I was just gonna send Martin an email but I thought I would just put the chat here. Martin had just asked for ideas or thoughts for where that that that some of money could come from and a few years ago I had worked with an organization at the University of Pennsylvania that was really really helpful in navigating like accessing state data systems for systems like that are non-operations reasons and so I just put the link to the to that group in the chat and they offer like training and consultation services for setting up these kinds of systems so it's just a potential resource that might help the working group and might help add some context to those figures. Great. Thank you and thank you for putting that in the chat. Um I kind of there's oh okay hold on Tyler. Hi I might I might need a little catch up here because I'm not so deep into this group but my understanding is when we were crafting the report last December that we were saying our group was lacking in its in terms of resources and capacity to actually do the analysis of the data that we had described needing and it seems to me that this piece of legislation is more about our feedback in developing the bureau that would be responsible for running that analysis of it. Am I am I missing a piece in there? It feels like this is a different task than the report that we were unable to complete last year. Well I guess I'm not sure we were unable to complete it. I think we did we did the scope of work in that until it got to collecting data at which point we were a little bewildered that we were even asked that. But otherwise I think it's there. I think this is asked that we out of that report came the idea of the bureau and we're now being asked for some further clarification on where that might go with the help of these other experts that we did not have the first time around. Okay and I apologize it didn't mean to suggest we weren't unable we were unable to complete. I recognize we did the task that was asked of us but it seemed to me that at that time we were thinking about who's going to run the analysis of this and the bureau is what would be running the analysis of these data right? Sure. Should I have that right? Okay. Yes. And this is about asking us for feedback on how that bureau where it should be housed and how it should be constructed right? Right. At least as far as I'm reading it. Okay. Just making sure I had it right in my mind. Thank you. Okay. I'll confirm that that is the intention of this bill. So thank you. Monica. Thanks Etan and I think Tyler that your question sort of you know made me think a little bit about another question because in number four about what our task is it's sort of we're supposed to actually give a recommendation about how the bureau should conduct data collection and analysis which is different than what should the bureau be? What's what's its scope? Where should it be housed? I think those are two important questions and I think people with different skill sets may also be able to answer those questions because on one hand it's a very there's some bureaucratic state things that need to be taken care of in terms of administration. Where do you put a bureau? How do you hire people you know all that kind of stuff? Then there is the work of what the bureau should do and I know I've said this before and maybe I'm just stuck on it and if I am that's fine people can tell me to not get stuck on it but I really am not sure that the word collect should be the right word. I don't know that the bureau collects anything. The bureau will be a repository. Data will come into the bureau from various places and that bureau needs to be able to aggregate it to analyze it to you know sort it out and then spit it back out to people unless I'm thinking about the bureau very wrong but I don't think about the bureau as being a primary place where data will be collected. David please note that carefully if you would. Thank you. Thank you. I also think is why it's important to have the chief data officer because even if you know we decided okay maybe this I don't necessarily think ADS is the place where this bureau should live but no matter what if state of Vermont entities are going to be sharing data the agency of digital services has to be involved in some way or another. Right. Okay. Let me take things a little out of order here because I know he has to go early. Judge Grierson. I don't want to oversimplify it but this bill the way it reads now seems consistent with the discussion we had a week ago and in our response to what that bill looked like and when I look at and it's been a while I would agree of and since I looked at our report this seems like a logical next step in this process that even though we were limp we indicated we were limited or we'd gone as far as we could with the old report this one I think recognizes the limitations that our limitations that we had identified and they're trying peers that they're trying to build on that and and I think that's the whole purpose of the of the working group and I would agree with with Monica about collection but when I look at number three just above that what should be the scope of the bureau's mission I think that's where we have the opportunity to to talk about what we see as the as the the bureau's work as opposed to are they going are we going to be a collection agency we're probably not but that's where we can define what the scope of the bureau's work will be I think by the addition of the of the folks to provide that information I think it gives us the framework to to take the next step and I and unless we can think of other entities that we would want to be involved in I think this provides an outline I still think it's quite I think it's quite an undertaking as I said last week I mean this is really putting the flesh on the skeleton of our report and you know it's going to be a big lift there's no question in terms of the time frame the six months and what we're expected to do but think it really is the next next logical step so I certainly if I have to leave before you make a vote I I certainly would support this this bill or at least the judiciary believes this is a way to proceed right there thank you um chief Stevens one question I had about the bill I didn't see anything involving authority because one of the things that we talked about was what authority someone might have to collect data that they may need or that doesn't exist or you know or creating some kind of mechanism to be able to collect to be able to gather that information is that shouldn't that be should their authority be part of this bill or should that be part of the recommendation of what the bureau has the authority to do not just to collect but to also um you know be able to to have those departments make changes so that way they can collect the data needed I'm just asking the question because I didn't see anything about the bureau having the authority to do x y and z um anyway I just wanted to ask if that's an issue or is that later on uh aton can I respond to yeah I thought you were getting there yes I think that might be covered in the subsection five uh maybe I'm mistaken that says the best methods for the bureau to enforce its data collection and analysis responsibilities I think that was at least the intent of of that particular subsection if you don't think that that does it we can certainly add an additional item if you have a suggestion but I think that that was aimed for that and if I could just make address a couple things that I heard from a couple other individuals there seem to be some about subsection four and five and we could actually change change this a little bit so that those two sections the that the report may also include these two sections you know the first three are shell those last two are may that gives some discretion for our DAP to decide whether it's appropriate once they get into for instance number three which is the mission uh and and you know number one where it is uh they may not want to or our DAP may not want to go that next step but they may may want to so I just want to throw that out there as as a possibility to address those couple concerns I heard I believe uh so anyway sorry to butt in but no it's okay I am hold on I'm uh folks you're all texting and emailing at the same time I'm one person you're 20 it's got it's gonna take a moment here sorry gotta say it uh Evan thank you yeah I just wanted to chime in real quickly and say that that I do agree with judge Greerson that this proposal is in line with what we discussed last session and or last meeting and it does appear to be the next logical step um and and I did want to recognize the distinction that that Tyler put forward about the difference between actually doing the data analysis and making a recommendation for how the data analysis should be conducted and and I think that Monica is correct that number four there on page 119 gets to the heart of that I think the concern that I was trying to raise was if we don't have the expertise to do the analysis how do we know the best way it should be done but that said if um if if we have the ability to identify the folks with that expertise and if those folks are willing to help us um either through the allocation of this $50,000 or through their generous spirits then then I think that I think this proposal is is a good one um and in terms of the $50,000 I unfortunately don't have a recommendation for whether or not that's an appropriate figure or if it should be higher or lower and would likely defer to others who have some experience in uh in in finding money to accomplish similar objectives. Thank you. Representative Christie. Hello everyone um sorry I joined you a little late was in another meeting um but I uh did listen to the conversation and what's interesting to me is uh I think Judge Greerson nailed it as far as where we're at based on the special meeting you know last week the question was put before us next steps so uh Martin uh myself uh Chairman Grad uh and Eric Fitzpatrick who is our attorney uh took to the best of our ability the notes from that meeting and constructed this amendment to the bill in such a way that it could be added to the miscellaneous judiciary bill which would be transversing transversing between the house and the senate in order to get across the finish line uh and it looks like the impending finish line is the 22nd uh that's the other meeting I was at so uh we have these other inertia factors going on but I think you know like Tyler's question and what Evan spoke to and even what Monica spoke to I heard a really interesting quote a couple of weeks ago about data and it was referred to as when you mentioned repository they called it a data lake you know and think of being able to extract whatever you're fishing for so you know if you want to get bashed you got to use a certain lure you know if you want to get uh you know stripers you got to get another you know I mean whatever it is you're you're looking for it's the tool so I'm a metaphor guys so I can't help that but the the big point is and I think Martin you know also went to the the response we're in that that space where we can adjust where we need to to get this you know ready for prime time so to speak the the other pieces that we talked about last week were we have some incredible resources available to us collectively uh and the fact that we all want this to be what we wanted to be which is the best we can for Vermont you know that that's the goal and as long as we continue to work in that way you know we'll get done what we need to get done so I'm just really grateful for everybody here and thank you all for standing up David if you can if for a moment here um housekeeping apparently Judge Davenport is somehow off the meeting can you get her back in I can't seem to do it just thank you if you can thank you I'm oh I think Judge Davenport Davenport just okay all right yeah thank you I'm no I'm listening by phone but I I'm not in the I can't seem to get into the meeting but that's all right I can I can listen by phone fine thanks so much sorry sure okay any other commentary here uh Sheila hey I just wanted to understand about the differences between the $50,000 and the per diems and whether the $50,000 includes the per diems and my other question to that is my understanding of per diem is like um $50 a day or something in mileage and I'm wondering if people feel like that's equitable um compensation for those who are not being compensated by their work or through the state my immediate response would be no as as far as it being uh adequate um when we uh did the working group uh last fall with the social equity caucus we kind of flipped that paradigm on its head and said let's be a little more reasonable so we went with a it broke down to 180 something dollars per meeting and it also helped us be able to generate a little extra to ensure that we had the administrative support necessary to move the project along as well because our original budget for that particular activity started at 200 so by just agreeing to modify the number down slightly to that 180 number it created enough extra funding so that we were able to actually uh get extra intern supports uh for the working group um so uh it's I think well no I don't think you know we just need to keep uh shifting you know this bubble because that's how we're going to really get to the change point can we shift that now hmm can we shift that now we already did you know I mean you know I mean we're this isn't this is the way we've done it and Martin and I were both part of that what I mean is can we shift that on this bill in this amendment looking at this and what we're doing it's the question one of the questions around what people are asking is around how that money is allocated and I'm not totally sure um like what the positions would be or whom we would need to be able to come in and I don't even know what the players that are mentioned do we compensate them or if because they're with the state or they're with this agency they're already paid for these are questions I don't I don't understand so when we're asking thousands allocated I'm not sure if I can even answer that question okay let me let me try to help with that answer if I may um what we would be suggesting uh because there's a lot of autonomy uh with rdap uh in the way we've word worded this uh as far as what you need for additional supports but the question becomes the number of people on the working group we we were operating with 14 community members over a directed six two-hour meeting format and those six meetings were allocated the hundred and eighty dollars per member during that period of time wait coach I'm confused this is the format you're describing is for this working group or this is okay six meetings you know this is this is a suggestion I'm not you know that's you know your autonomous piece but uh if if you use that as a let's say a guidepost because that's you know we have an example a working example that worked you know we produced a 62 page report you know as a result of that work using that format and so I'm just sharing that experience with you not to say it has to be locked down but at the same time I can tell you that if you used a format similar to that and you had you know 10 community members let's say that budget more is more than adequate to cover that okay and that I know for fact I'm not just you know throwing you know numbers out because that's where it is so that's you know that's that round number gives a lot of discretion you know to your committee which is our debt to determine you know what's needed for that work you might you know push it out to maybe eight meetings between now and then you know because there is life that goes on in between all of this as well you know so um that's just some thoughts I did quick math and if it's six times two which is 12 right times how many meetings no with six meetings two hours time no six I'm all confused never mind six times 14 community members times 180 comes to 15,000 yeah and we don't have that many that was my point right thank you Monica I I think you just answered my question because I was like why are we using the 14 figure but we're just using as because there aren't 14 community members on our panel but correct that's why I just said that 15,000 yeah it's actually 15 120 it and that's going to be that clarification yes right and then we could use the money for other purposes right Sheila does that help um I think that what I understood from this conversation is is that there's a pull of money that if we decide on this agreement that we have the discretion and how to spend that which includes we could compensate those at large members at whatever the group and body decides is that basically what just happened I I would like to suggest okay and then you notice that I don't get emphatic that often about things but but this particular one in order to help the paradigm shift that we're working on is if we thought in terms of 200 180 to 200 dollars use that number because it we're hoping to be able to replicate this more times in other activities so having a fixed number would be appropriate uh that's what we used uh last fall uh and it was what three times more than normal so if if you look at that as a number you know it's saying that you as an organization and a group feel strongly about the value of your community members and their time and and that was the statement we were trying to make last fall that is the statement that I'm trying to make right now so thank you okay no I I could tell sister you know you you you were there but you know that but that gives you know us collectively you know even as legislators administrators all of the different hats that we wear to be able to say this is a reasonable number you know those of us that have done honorariums for different presentations you know you know when you get that you know 200 dollar check you just kind of go wow that's really cool you know um so and and that just says people you know appreciate you in what you bring to the table so hopefully that's helpful I wanted also in this to point I have an email that I have to send um around to everyone from both dr crocker and professor sand having to do with their participation and this important point on this is that they feel that for their expertise perhaps and as a quote 25,000 would suffice which might never be spent and there's a whole long explanation about why that might be the way it goes I will send that out but even so we're still under we're under 50 which means we can really first of all bring in other people and pay them in a way that isn't sort of insulting and we can do the same with the community members that are on the panel can I just say one thing sorry I just wanted to follow up on that email in that I think what we meant to say in that email was uh no but was that if we'd love to be involved without compensation like we the $25,000 was not for us it was like maybe you need $25,000 for some of these other things um so well thank you yes that's I got that really wrong thank you dr uh monica well I think Abby just probably clarified the question I had because then I was like oh if we're gonna pay someone $25,000 then don't we have to get into like contracting for things but if we don't need to do that which I hope we can avoid then no worries and I also support um having 100 and or 180 200 whatever the amount is for our at-large panel members to participate in meetings and if we need to make that change in this bill I think that would be really helpful Evan I figured I might as well chime in on this $50 per DM while I had two representatives willing to listen to me because I can tell you having come from the Natural Resources Board which administers the Act 250 program and has many many volunteers who spend a lot of time uh working for the state that there's been a many conversations not just in this context where uh the the sufficiency of the $50 per DM for people who lend their lend their time to the state of Vermont uh might might not be enough and so um you know I would agree that that $50 for doing important work like this um you know could could be improved in in general but also in the context of this working group I don't anticipate the department would object to giving folks willing to volunteer their time more than $50 a day David I'm you've been tracking all of the little these changes that we've been discussing yes in this bill yep I've got it down in this this discussion in particular certainly in agreement with it I think it might require a little language tweak but uh that's not hard hard to do I think we can embody the the intent here pretty easily okay um coach and um representative Milan what what is when do you need this back with our comments my my immediate response would be uh as soon as possible obviously got it okay but as far as the uh the detail uh pieces you know we we'd need to talk with uh ledge council about that language piece David you know as far as some of the the detail pieces uh a possible uh response to the numbers issue is being that the social equity caucus has been identified in statute already utilizing the language of the working group of last fall all would be uh like session language that would allow for us to talk about those numbers differences you know as far as the the community uh finance component um you know if for some reason ledge council felt that we couldn't identify it exactly you know without getting hung up in appropriations because that's the other piece you know too um some of this is clearly strategy but as long as the understandings are there and the total number is there and you have the discretion and we have an agreement what that expected discretion may be um there's a lot of trust but hey maybe we should shift that paradigm too so just my thought thank you I let me wait for a moment Rebecca I just wanted to be clear um what what other tweaks besides making clear that we want to make sure that the proteum reflects the maximum possible and appropriate to compensate um our our bi-bot community members who are going to be doing some incredible work on this and shouldn't be compensated accordingly so for what is worth I also thank you Sheila for for pushing that issue front and center tonight and and I want to make sure that um my strong support for that is reflected here but besides that tweaking uh David what are the other pieces you're pulling from tonight's meeting things that were we need to adjust the contract oh so far the only thing that I've noted is that okay I don't want to clarify mostly most of the concerns were actually I think answered by people who noted that it was contained in the language already so I'm not seeing much else and on that piece the only thing I'm noting is just 32 vsa 1010 if that's in there the maximum 50 bucks under under statute so that has to come out and it has to be replaced but that's again I don't think something we need to hash out in this group we know that we need to do that I think the legislators and the ledge council can take care of it okay it's just important that that be noted that that needs to be taken care of and that definitely yeah um I would say also those things I had mentioned that um on page two line five taking out the national center on restorative justice and simply putting in professor's crocker and sand that has to be there um I guess that's it that I had um Sheila well well there was I'm sorry we were in the original draft yes before this draft yes before the other one I had put names because I had spoken to right just about everybody and so I named names and it was ledge council that said we needed to use organizations versus names you know and I think that that was you know you know the piece um so I see you know it we can figure out how to how to get around that if there's a concern around using there is so there is we have to do something about that okay um just but I'll just make that right so Martin and I can talk to uh Eric about how we can address that because you know he's he's the one that's got to make that work you know for the green books or the session law book right thank you um representative yeah I just wanted to there was one other uh suggestion that I had made because of a couple of the uh concerns that folks had with uh on first page lines the lines 19 2021 the how the bureau should conduct analysis and then the methods for the bureau to enforce that uh we could you know those first three items uh the report shall address and then we could have these other two items that the report may address and that gives a little flexibility uh to our staff uh on whether they want to address it or if you simply run out of time it gives you an escape hatch at least for those two items so uh if folks are fine with that other change that I'm gonna have our legislative council do great and David if you would note that please I apologize Sheila I just apologize because I looked on the agenda that we we have this up to have further discussion on Thursday morning just FYI I just wanted to flag that for you okay uh and David's just been kicked out I just got back in but I missed just as Martin was saying what needed to be changed I dropped off so uh Martin if you could just email me that correction that would be very helpful we'll do okay now Sheila who's been patient thanks at top um can we just take out the language about the intern um I just don't think it's necessary to be in there and I'm not quite sure why and if I don't know if it's nepotysis or if that's just the the natural flow or what people use or do but um somebody said earlier there's not a reason for the language to really be in there so could we take that out as well uh actually not okay well I'm glad I'm asking can you explain no no no no I'll I'll explain why okay um we were really fortunate uh over the last six months to be part of an experiment and that experiment was working with UVM and Middlebury specifically with student interns and student intern supports as you know we are a citizen legislature so all of the work that you see happening you know in front of the scenes and behind the scenes are done by us personally so what limited supports that we get unless you're a committee chair and have a committee assistant working you know basically for you you know everything else you do on your own so we've been working on this intern program and as a result it's amplified the amount of work we've been able to do for Vermonters the purpose of utilizing the term the UVM intern program specifically was embedding that in statute so that it becomes a reference point for the legislature as it continues to do projects especially during the summer to be able to get students involved in the legislative process uh and so that it's not a hidden meaning it's pretty intentional and and that's that's what I meant Sheila it wasn't to be rude it if I can't I won't I I'll put it this way I won't take your time to get into some of the accomplishments that these young people have bought to the table but I I am just so proud and impressed of their work that they can and will be of assistance to this project and that was the other reason for you know listing it uh because they you know they'll be there for you can I just um say one comment in with regards to that that's great and I'm so happy that you had and have been having such a great positive experience I'm wondering for this group specifically and with our task I I look at things a little bit more acutely focused and so though I think that's great I sort of wonder specifically what the racial makeup was of those youth and those students that we're talking about because while I agree with you that I think that is wonderful and great disproportionately we do not see youth of color in those positions at least from what I've seen and so I I can't speak to that because I don't know who you've had but if that is the case and we're going to represent them in legislation which because that thing that you mentioned that I would hope that this group are we're finding efforts for the group to make sure that both communities of color or youth of color as well as if we're talking about the social equity committee of other people the lgbtq queer community trans community um disability except that those youth are being able to have the opportunities to be in those positions of leadership as well as um what I've seen as our typical white sort of middle-class youth so I I'll uh to answer part of the question um the the student who is acting as the assistant to the director of the program for UVM happens to be a young woman of color and she's the only standing intern let's say that will be continuing to work you know with us and the program into the summer now to ensure that for this particular project you know we can add additional language you know to that you know to ensure that uh in the selection you know that preference be given you know to um our BIPOC and disenfranchised for minor uh community you know and that's you know it's very similar to what you know we've been doing with you know the sec uh and you know that's just continuing to shift the paradigm Rebecca oh sorry oh did you did Sheila freeze oh I think I think we have a no I didn't freeze I'm trying to eat some pie at the same time okay that's oh that's I saw the air phones and stuff and I'm going wait a minute thank you um thank you I appreciate that okay and then we'll uh Martin and I'll make sure that uh you know that piece is covered Rebecca thanks Zayton two comments I wanted to uh respond to the suggestion that on page one lines 1920 uh options four and five effectively be turned into an optional optional project for the working group to work on this this session and for what it's worth I I think that I think I want to make sure that that the concerns that I heard earlier tonight don't remove options four and five from being required in our report because I actually think that is the value added that this working group provides to the legislature um the complicated hard work rubber hits the road uh recommendations and so in fact I think we already as a panel brought forward our recommendations for one um we you know Pepper collected all of our our suggestions on on what should go right two and three are very close to what we've already produced in our report uh to some sense it's really four and five and which is why we have the um the list of experts they're identified that is the value added so I would really really recommend against turning that into an optional language keeping the language in 12 and 13 and if the issues what I've heard from Monica and Evan it was worth smithing and understanding are we talking about collection in the sense that it's collecting the data is this a data lake to me that's different and can be reconciled with handling how to handle that word collection in 1920 but otherwise to keep that shallow I think it's critically important actually that this mandatory otherwise I think that this uh you know summer hits we could and I I know I mean it's hard work ahead of us if this passes this is the fastest way for us to not we we say it's optional we don't do it so I strongly recommend against it the second comment um is is that this certainly reflects where we were a week ago but there are two pieces I just realized not included in here and that was we talked about adding um changing the panel makeup by including uh Susanna Davis or her position to the panel the racial equities director and adding community members to that panel so I just wondered where uh that why why that hasn't um come forward in this draft I was wondering I thought that would be more that's what would happen if in fact it after the working group does its work and whatever h317 becomes next session that's when that go into effect I had understood that we could benefit from Susanna Davis even this summer and fall and and these additional perspectives from community members and speaking to what Sheila just talked about in terms of concerns on making sure that we have that critical perspective at all points of our of our work this summer I think it is really that was what I understood last last week but I don't know if things have changed since the but I certainly would continue to support the addition of that and change in the panel makeup so if I if I may a quick question uh and this would be a question of affirmation or ratification uh as as you get to the point of decisions uh for our doubt uh if because we shifted to the working group we weren't looking at the full implementation of 317 right part of 317 uh did have uh expanding rdap by two which would be selected by the addition of the racial equity executive director or designee which was missing because the the position didn't exist when you guys started you know and that that was just the anomaly so we're correcting that anomaly by doing that but also increasing the size of rdap by two to include more you know community members but hopefully even more so the special pops with special skills you know looking for there's some community members of the BIPOC community that are like rock stars in data and it would be cool if that one or two of them were appointees of the ed uh two-year committee for any number of different reasons not just this particular piece but just in general uh so what we can do is and and I can talk to lech council about this and and martin I I think I thought we had a discussion during the the talk about the bill that we could add another sub-piece in the miscellaneous bill to include that section so that they're separate I think that's the plan yes right okay uh just trying to keep you know a lot of balls juggle in the air and I but I thought that was what the plan was so Monica thanks a ton I just um wanted to respond since Rebecca made a few statements on four and five um first I just want to say that I do agree that the that's bill is totally going in the direction we wanted to go in and I think you know I'm being sort of nitpicky but I'm I think I'm doing it in a way to be helpful to us as we go through our work um because I think you know we're going to establish the bureau figure out how it would be staffed establish its mission I think getting into the details about how it operates in terms of how it conducts data collection and analysis is probably better left for actually the people who are going to be hired to actually do that work I think what we can do is is talk about this idea of the lake or the repository or come up with another metaphor as to sort of how that should all work at a larger structural level so that the bureau in fact does have data that it needs to do the work that's the it's subtle in my you know my mind but I think there is a distinction there and I feel like if we didn't clear it up now we may end up getting caught in the weeds as we start to do our work over the summer but it's not anything that I'm gonna you know hold up hold up the discussion with I just wanted to kind of make that point well it's being noted I mean David's writing stuff down my suspicion is what it's going to happen here is that this is going to David's going to produce a document get it to me I mean or himself send it out to everybody we'll get comment on it it's going to be another electronic ballot and the time turn around on this and I'm just going to say it now folks is going to be lightning fast lightning fast and they'll be drop dead moments like there was with the report in December like if I don't hear back from you by X and I don't mean X plus one minute we're out you're out it's going to be really really quick I again I don't think we have to necessarily vote on it now because there have been some things suggested it needs to get back to um representative Christy it needs to end representative Alon and then get it I mean we can have one round here but this is ASAP there's no time for a lot on this at this point um I'm just putting that out there so no Monica it's not being ignored it's just there's a list here that David's compiling anything else Karen I'm coming slowly um just to make a point I don't know if folks saw it in the chat but Loretta looked and and just made a comment that the act has an effective date of July 1st 2022 instead of 2021 so I just wanted to make sure to state the obvious that we got that taken care of well now that's important isn't it it might be helpful yeah thank you thanks Loretta yeah thanks Loretta Evan just a question Evan you're silent my apologies just a question about next steps following up on on your last comment Aitan um so is the is the idea that that David would put together like uh like a different version of the bill or just like a document that has our recommendations for the legislature to consider in incorporating in into the bill that's what I'm perceiving is that it will be things that we asked he can put in yeah my plan here is just to do the minutes have the minutes hopefully accurately reflect the discussion and some of which there's some there's some clear change points and then there's others where I think uh there's discussion and the legislators will have to decide how to incorporate that because we don't have control over that really Sheila for clarification we are talking about the three pager and not the longer bill correct yeah yeah this making sure okay yeah now we're nowhere near the longer bill well so the reason why I say that is is I mean processing I had a lot of comments and in questions around 317 which may be applicable in this conversation but I'm trying to sit back and see if my questions are answered and so that's why I'm just clarifying they're the only thing that we are being directed to the fast vote on is this three pager amendment to what we were doing okay correct because that's that's got to go in like now or close to now any other commentary on this David could you go through everything you have so far please for us so that everyone has a sense of where we're at and can make other comments if they need to sure so um I'm going to start if I can you know it's it's still pretty rough here so I'm going to that's why I'm going to start by trying to pick out the things that I think we're clear which I actually don't think there's a huge amount where it's like this is the definitive decision point but it's very clear that we want to not use the 32 vsa 1010 limits so the the $50 per dm limits so that that we're clear on that martin had a suggestion which I will get from him and is also recorded by orca media so I can check that too later and then a couple other issues where I think we're still figuring it out or there's some technical stuff national senator sort of justice replacing that with the names uh coach will work with ledge council to figure that out if that's doable and we had a discussion about the intern language but my sense of the end of that discussion the discussions noted but I'm not noting an action item because my sense of the end of that was that or no I sorry I kept reading the end of that is that coach is going to um go back and think about ways to make the diversity point clear but potentially make the diversity point clear in the language of the bill regarding the intern um cohort and then there was a bit of I don't think there's any decision on this but there was discussion regarding four and five on page one options four and five on page one Rebecca making the point that this is very important it's a real value add that we can bring Monica making the point that agrees with the direction of the bill but that the technical processes that four and five are arguably referring to are things that are really technical data issues as opposed to big picture uh bureau construction issues and so I leave that I'm not putting any action item on that discussion just noting it that there is a back and forth there clear action item is changing the effective date um but we can I think trust ledge council to get that one right um and that's what I have okay let me just check in with chief Stevens you raised a couple points earlier are those addressed for you chief uh yeah it takes a minute for the mute button to come up so it sounds it sounds like um based on what was said I I believe it is because there was a section pointed to so um I don't think we have to deal with the authority issue um if it's been addressed not yet yeah well I think the legislature pointed to the the section that dealt with that and I'm satisfied that it's been addressed okay thank you um that is all that I can remember does anyone have other things that they need to have addressed oh wait one thing David um and I'm not sure Monica has raised the point line 11 page one about collect and there was some discussion about language around collect yeah I have that in my notes sorry I didn't pull that one out but that isn't there thank you thank you anyone else uh Tyler I would just say for at least in my mind for clarity's sake uh several of the things you mentioned were all combined so the part David missed about Representative Lalonde's um suggestion was what um later Rebecca and Monica were talking about number four and five so those weren't distinct things and I think the collection that Monica originally that was it's kind of built all into that same question so that's that's still that's probably one of the bigger things all wrapped up together okay sorry maybe that didn't help it differently that's all okay it's fine it's fine I yeah I take the point I think hopefully that um Martin's suggestion is really could be taken as part of that discussion between Monica and Rebecca and that's going to be a decision point for legislators to make ultimately David you put that so much better than I did sorry for my mumbling it's late no just making sure I got it thanks the next step then is coach do you see that you need to what do you see do you that you need to take this back it's a ledge council with the suggestions from us do we need to do that again what sense to you the critical issues I think um can be reasonably addressed um with a conversation with ledge council so um what I would suggest is is that Martin and I meet with Eric with David's notes and push those pieces in okay will you be able to get a draft of this back to me after that step oh yeah yeah okay then I will then get that out to everyone to look at finally with an electronic ballot to vote for or against or abstain um and that as I say will be rather quick because as uh coach said everything is shutting down on the 22nd is that reasonable coach yeah yeah okay hopefully even if it becomes a straw vote of some sort um you know just thinking of you know like you know how how how intense the calendar is right now just the legislative calendar and getting it through both bodies the senate is ready to deal with the miscellaneous bill the questions become you know those around having to make any pit stops at other committees so we're trying to keep that to a minimum so but but that's you know that's our uh piece of headache at the moment but we can try to pull that together okay chief Stevens there we go um well I guess my my question would be since there's such a fast turnaround time and you we only have one shot at looking at it and there won't be any changes made because there won't be any time it sounds like everybody agrees that this bill is what they want in in in the meat of it so do you think it be prudent to say we we adopt this uh you know as is and they will take it under consideration and then because you're getting into the minute details that you're not going to be able to even what happens if somebody says no are they going to change it are they going to have to change it so my question is what does the vote do that that will allow us um time to do anything with the bill outside of just looking at and say yeah go ahead so well that's my point so I guess should we if we agree that this is the the next step and this is the way we want the the the bill at least make a motion to say we support this moving forward and that the details can be you know uh or you want to word the details saying it's for informational purposes or this is what we would like so we don't have to go back forward because even if somebody says no we're not they're not going to change it because we don't so I'm asking the question to the group does it make sense to just give a give that authority now so that way coach can put whatever he needs into the bill send it back to us for informational purposes only um and then go forward I'm just asking the question to the group I'd like to make that I think that sounds great I'd like to make that a motion anyone seconding it um what what can we actually what is the the how as we said motion I mean I I'm looking at coach to say what what does he need from us that would give them the legislators the assurance that that we're on board with this and that he's going to do the tweaking and that we're just going to be supporting from a informational standpoint you know like the changes or whatever can I please make a suggestion sure somebody um you know uh uh david was perhaps slightly more articulate than he gave himself credit for when he was reading off his notes but as he mentioned it was a fairly succinct uh list of recommendations that we had for improving this proposal so perhaps um an efficient way to do this would be for him to maybe read them really quickly and then I would be happy to make a motion that uh our DAP endorsed this version of um of the proposed bill subject to the changes listed by david share and then maybe we would be able to have a second and a vote on that but at least that way it would be memorialized I don't know if I would just Evan I wouldn't know if I would say subject to because then if coach can't put something in that's not exactly what if they don't put everything that we've suggested in there then if you're saying we approve it only if these are put in uh then then if they don't then then what right do we say does that mean we don't approve it so well I think it means that we're I think either way we're stuck with whatever the legislature tells us to do because they created us and they there are sort of bosses so how about we just say humbly that we would prefer these these changes yeah I would say make a motion my personal thing is to make a motion to accept the bill as it has been stated but recommend the following changes um to be included if possible or whatever the language might be that sounds lovely david would you please read everything succinctly as Evan has asked I will try the so again there's a couple categories here there's the clear changes so I'm gonna list the clear changes only to start and then we'll go from there um the clearest change is around the per diems I think we're all in agreement there and then we have the a couple of issues where it's going to be like technical but they're going to acquire about it which is the names versus the national center or sort of justice reference and I think that was that was the big one there and then there's a couple of broader discussions which I think are not really they are things that the legislators are going to have to judge because we are in in agreement at this point but we can note them which is just that there's the shall versus may issue regarding some of the options and the monaco rebecca martin lond discussion which I will concisely refer to just that way and the final piece that I have on here that I'm remembering is the intern piece and making reference to adequate diversity in that cohort so with that being said I would like to make a motion that we accept the amendment as it was presented to us with with suggested changes that can be considered by the legislators that david has just outlined thank you does anyone want to second the motion I'll second it thank you Evan now I'm gonna ask as we vote that the members because there's a lot of people here who are not actually on the panel I'm gonna ask that members of the panel vote both with their voice and with raising their hands like you want to talk and just leave it up all right it's gonna be a little slow here but both voice so you can hear yourselves and then I can also make sure that it's just panel who are voting um by rate with raising your hands so all in favor hi hi hi just tabulating here okay thank you give me a moment I have to lower your hands now okay now all opposed you still have hands up um you know there I see oh thank you yeah I'm getting there opposed thank you all abstentions thank you motion is carried David we look forward to getting those that list from you thank you all Tyler you're smiling what's that that always feels good to get something done ah yes there is that yes um thank given thank you everyone first off I am like losing my threads of thought here um I'm gonna just sort of executively say that I think we're kind of done with discussing this right now I think that the first item which is actually the second item the discussion of the whole thing which Sheila had right talked about before there's no point in bringing that up now we have 12 minutes left um so let's just table that obviously we're going to be doing that a lot um does anyone have anything new that they need to bring up at this point no okay our next meeting as far as we know is the 8th of June of 2021 um I'd like to thank both coach and Martin Mulan for their their work on this um that report took a lot last year and it is indeed gratifying to see it turn into something that can be of use to the state and to its residents and so thank you very much for all that you've done with the RDAF thank everybody on the RDAF I don't say that enough um but I mean it um thank you all for all of the work that you do and we'll continue to do um our next meeting again 8th of June and I think we're just gonna adjourn we don't even need a vote on this one I think everyone's toast um and I will see you all in June you know how to find me go and be fruitful have a nice thanks a ton thanks everyone good night good night good night everyone good night everybody good night good night all take care coach