 Let's do a quick invite. Susanna. I am here. Is this intros? Yeah, this is intro. I'm glad that existential statement, though. Hi, I'm Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Director for the state. Ian. Hi, Ian, Loris, Eton's note taker slowly drying out from being caught in the rain five minutes ago. Oh. Rain. Wow. He's in Chicago. OK. Karen. Karen Gannett, Crime Research Group. Evan. Evan Meenan, Vermont Department of State's attorneys. Great. Elizabeth. Elizabeth Morris, DCF. Rebecca. Rebecca Turner, Defender General's Office. Great. And Monica. Hi, everyone. I'm Monica Weber. I'm with the Department of Corrections. Great. Good evening. This is really just a check-in. I wanted to make sure that we have our ducks in a row so that tomorrow night, when we meet with the full panel, there it'll go as smoothly as it can go, which isn't to say I'm not expecting that something, you know, that everyone's going to agree on everything and sing Kumbaya. I just would like this to be without any unnecessary road bumps. I am taking it that everyone has looked, at least, at the documents that are on SharePoint. So this would be a good moment to bring up issues that you have yourselves. There are, I mean, the first, I mean, we certainly know that Point One is still an open book. That seems, interestingly, to have been the biggest issue we've had is location of this. And that has been true since we started. I just think we should note. I'm sort of intrigued by that. But that has been the biggest issue we have had since the beginning of this project is where this thing should go. So that's going to be a big discussion. We have narrowed it down. I mentioned that last time that it got, I mean, we were really free-form at one point. And we now have it down to residing within the executive branch, which says a lot. Because I mean, we were, you know, there was no moment when we were, there was a moment when we weren't thinking about who requisitions computers and OKs over time and stuff like that. So we've gone a great distance on that. But we still have more to go. You should know that Karen, if you haven't looked, did a really sort of, and witchy, right, Karen? Yes. OK, they did a real big lift on points four and five. And that is that is on the SharePoint site as well. So what I really, I just literally, I want to check in, where are you all? What is still missing? What do you want to remember to bring up tomorrow? And don't feel, again, like we're filling two hours. This is really literally, I just wanted to check in of this group. Well, I'm happy to relay something that I also said to Rebecca during the conversation that we had towards the end of last week, which is, I don't think that this unresolved issue of where to house the entity is necessarily a bad thing. I think there's going to be some considerations that the legislature is going to have to make, one of which I'm sure rightfully or wrongfully is the cost of housing this in each entity. And I think it would be appropriate for us to say that we had identified some good homes. We can feel free to flag concerns, pros and cons for each home if we wanted to. And then just suggest that the legislature talk to each of those entities, do a fiscal analysis, and make the decision they're going to make. And so I think we're in a fairly good spot. I do too. I do too. Yeah, I was looking over at 65 today and thinking, we don't have to answer all of it. I mean, we'll do the best we can. And if there are things that are still at stake, I mean, that part where best practices, you're asking a bunch of people who don't do data all the time to determine best practices. Can we talk to the data people about that? I mean, it was sort of an interesting thing to put in that act, I thought. And we do have data people, obviously. We have Taryn and Robin, and we have Witchie. But we have Monica who does it as well. Still, I'm still sort of feeling like the people who are going to be on this need to make these decisions. And it would be inappropriate, to some degree, for us to do that before this body exists. Another issue that I, oh god, my brain is just turning to mush, oh, we're going to have to deal with the really big point, the relationship of the governing body with the bureau staff themselves. You'll remember last time we were talking guide versus govern versus inform versus. That's going to be, I think, a point. That's going to take some time. What the role of the board is that governing or advisory, the composition of the board, members, all those questions are going to come up. Are there other powers and duties, Rebecca, as I asked at a certain moment? So that's another one that I'm thinking of. Those are the first two big ones. I like Evan's very quiet, calm, sort of no-nonsense. Well, we could just answer this by saying this. So Evan, come up with one for this, because that worked very well. You said it in a very soothing voice. OK, never mind. I just think that that would be a good one, because I think that's going to be a big question. That's going to be a huge question. But I actually also think it's probably one of our last huge questions. One thing that's hard for me to do in answering that question is that I know that there's entities, such as this, that have governing or advisory bodies in other areas of state government. And I haven't been involved with a sufficient number of them to know which model works better than most. And so I don't want to kick the can always. But if I was a legislator voting on where to put this on a bill, I would want to know, are there any similar entities where there's run by an executive director figure, and then there's a entity that has some level of oversight. And I would want to know what model works well in order to keep those people trained, educated, and engaged. Because I don't think that that's always true, unfortunately. I mean, and sometimes it's just because people have a lot going on. But that's what I would want to take a look at and sort of maybe do an inventory of those entities. Maybe that's something Ledge Council would help with, I'm not sure, and then talk to some of those folks. If you would like, I could put in a call to Representative LaLonde and ask that. It might be helpful. He might know or he might know how to get the answer to that. OK. OK. The Natural Resources Board is one of those entities. And I was, and Susanna, you might remember, I was the associate general counsel of that board. So I have some experience with it. But I wouldn't want my experience with an entity that has a similar governing structure to sort of be the only experience that was shared and, therefore, have it be inferred that that's somewhat representative, that that structure is either really good or really bad. Because I'm sure that there are ways to make it work very effectively. Right. And right. And of course, racial equity is set up that way. Yes. I think this should all come up tomorrow. I will call Representative LaLonde sometime during the day tomorrow and see if I can. Well, Susanna is just coming up with all sorts of. Monica, go ahead. Well, I was also thinking, and I don't know much about them, but there's a bunch of boards and commissions that fall within the Agency of Human Services. And I just went to their web page just to, and I'll just throw them out. So there's the Developmental Disabilities Council, the Human Services Board, a citizen's panel consisting of seven members created by the legislator. Its duties are to act as a fair hearing board for appeals. Or, you know, so obviously not the same thing, but then served Vermont, Vermont States Service Commission established by executive order. Then there's the Parole Board, which is actually housed within the Agency of Human Services, which is, those people are appointed by the governor and they have an executive director. So they're fairly independent as well. They're interesting because their budget is actually in the Department of Corrections budget, but we don't actually have any oversight of them. So just throwing that out there is a couple more possibilities for, and I'll just copy the link to that page in the chat. Great, and Elizabeth, thank you for your contribution. Yeah, I'm always happy to discuss my, mine's a little different because they're a supervisory board for a federal formula grant. So they have almost all authority on how to spend those federal dollars. And then they have D.C.F. So they don't have any, you know, governing authority over D.C.F.'s decisions, but. I think all of this ought to come up tomorrow. I mean, you know, we could certainly all sit here and go, should it, would it, could it, you know, done a research thing on this from the beginning, but whatever. I just, I refuse to feel badly. Well, Andy, the heart of it is really the relationship, isn't it? Well, I mean, and I think that, and I'm not familiar with all of these, some of these I am, certainly sentencing commission doesn't govern any, can barely govern itself. I hate to agree with you, but that's been my experience on that commission. And I'm not on it anymore. Yeah, as vice chair on that commission. No, but I do think that's really, instead of getting it lost as to, you know, this or that, it's the overarching characteristics of these various boards you guys are throwing out there in the chat, which is useful that we should make sure is highlighted so that we can see what the panoply of options there have been, but ultimately, my understanding of how we're conceiving this relationship between what I'm just been calling the executive director and staff, right? Versus this board, I think it has to fundamentally be consistent with the key principles that's been driving us all along, right? To ensure that there is integrity to the actual final project, but also the work done until you get the final project. So how do you ensure the integrity, right? Best practices sure, method sure, transparency, accountability, accuracy, appropriate and sufficient opportunity to get the perspectives in. What we haven't talked about explicitly is, but that AISP toolkit goes through it fundamentally and throughout just checking, checking, inheriting, continuing, exacerbating, racism, biases and data collection itself, right? Although we have to somehow build in those checks and balances. Yes. You know, how many people sit on the board? What's the relationship? I mean, all of that is like fundamentally, I'm not going to vote no on this panel over numbers, but what I do feel strongly about and what we should present to the legislature are these sort of key principles. Because we can say independent, transparent, however we want to say it, you know, stand alone within a certain branch of government on and on and on, but we can build it in multiple ways. Right, right. Okay. Anyone else got something big that we're going to bring up tomorrow? About the section or like, Karen, well, you know, I was hoping has witchy here now, but Karen, I don't know if Robin's here. I can't tell if she's on the call. I was just looking because I wasn't able to go read this closely, your section. I had to drop out at two today, but I'm just, could you, could you just do mind doing like a walkthrough just to familiarize? And I won't ask if everyone else is all set to go, but I thought sort of the key points to this. Karen? Sure, yep. I'm just pulling it up right now. So witchy and I went through this together. Well, not together. We actually, oh, and it looks like Julio made some changes as well. So I haven't reviewed it since Julio made changes. So Julio, you may want to chime in as I'm going through this. Let me just look through this. Okay, so the first thing I did was I took Robin's right up under data, I forget what she called it. Hold on, let me look, data part one. So I took data part one and I just put it at the top. So it was, I left the original document, the draft plan, the way it was with Monica's points. I think there's seven points in there and then the figure. And then I just said, number five continued. How the office should conduct data collection, that should say, collection and analysis. And then I put in Robin's data part one, which had to do with the office working with the agency of digital services and enterprise unit liaison to the national criminal justice reform project, which we've all talked about using the data integration plan and she put attached as appendix X and Etan and I had talked about just putting it in the body of the document. So I left that in there, but I also added it to the body of the document. We can decide if it goes in or as an attachment. The NCJRP should work to expand their governance structure to include more community members and people represented in the data. This was added by witchy, I think. Yeah, witchy as guided by section four in this report. So as guided by the stakeholder section. The office should identify data extracts that are already available and she put in suggestions, judiciary, DOC public use file, national incident-based reporting system and criminal histories, create code books for the public and work on merging and de-identifying data to create a public data set for analysis and witchy added create code books. He thought that was a brilliant idea so people know what they're looking at. The office should work with the governing body in the community to identify research questions to be answered and identify data needed to answer those questions in accordance with literature and best practices. So that goes to the best practice piece. It really should be the data analysts and researchers in the office that use the most current literature and the best practices and the methodologies for the question they're trying to answer. The official post dashboards of metrics relating to racism in the criminal justice system, which is something that folks have been wanting, that dashboards, metrics, etc, shall be created with the income metrics delivered by similar reporting tools must be available to the public. However, before public publication, these are for... Teran, you're trying to help yourself out. Yeah, that, oh, sorry. I'll try and get closer here. I think that had to do with people's concern about the use of the data and how it was going to impact the community it represents to make sure there's an assessment of that. And then we talked about the office awarding research grants to qualified outside researchers, not just CRG and UVM, but other researchers to answer questions posed by the government. The best methodology for answering a particular question, including support for qualitative analysis. And I do, so I will add that to the list or send it to Ann to add that to the list after I review it. So qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis. I'll call it quantitative data analysis. I think your internet's bad, Karen. I see this one. Something's happening because you're... Yeah. Oh, it could be. Should I shut down my... There we go. I'll do this and see it. Yeah, shut the... Right. Can you hear me? I think so. Okay. So all quantitative data analysis must include an impact of context in its interpretation, such as the effects of historical policies. Benchmark, benchmark metric, not non-Hispanic outcomes, but by general population goals. And that was a question about not... But the butt side of this sentence. And then Rebecca just wrote, yes, I don't understand what this means. We'll have to ask Robin about that tomorrow night. I'm not sure what that... Or I can ask her and send a message out to you all. Okay. And then the risks that we may still need to address are avoiding surveillance, using the data for surveillance, addressing confidentiality and transparency. And then this is... Below this is the plan that we've gone over a couple times. And this is the National Criminal Justice Reform Project information sharing plan. This has to do with the governance body, I think we're calling it the infrastructure governance body, the nuts and bolts plan, the identification of the data, the requirements committee that identifies the data, and then the architecture committee that determines what's needed for architecture and then staff support from... And the staff support is the person at ADS. And Wichee added his comments in here and Julio added his comments in here. And I haven't... I've answered Wichee's comments under his comments and I have not addressed anything by Julio at this point in time. So I haven't looked at Julio's comments yet. Julio, do you want to add something to that? Is Julio still on? Julio said something about needing to sign off and sign on again because I think he's not at home and he was having trouble. Okay. So the plan at the bottom part is what we've gone over and Wichee has added his comments in there. And one of the questions we both had is because this was written for NCJRP and Monica, maybe you have a thought about this, because it was written for NCJRP, is it okay to add in our comments to this plan in addressing racial equities? Or do we need to leave the plan as it is and just make our comments within the body of the report? I didn't have an answer for that. I thought it was okay to add in the comments myself. I would imagine that it would be. I mean, the NCJRP knows about the crossover here. Absolutely. I think that would be. And a lot of us are. It's like we are them. I don't know. So yeah. We are them. We are them. It's a bad grammar. It's a bad grammar, but yeah. So, so we, Wichee and I can incorporate his comments. And if he's on here, I don't know if he is or not, but I owe him a huge apology because somehow I totally missed our meeting this morning at 8am. And that's, we were going to go over this together and kind of tidy it up. So we'll still do that. Okay. Thank you, Monica. Is your hand up again? Go for it. It is up again. So. I'm sorry. No, it's fine. No, I had taken it down and I put it back up, but I wanted to, I have, I do have two questions. And one is related to that bullet point about research grants. I found that kind of interesting that the office shell award research grants to qualified outside researchers. And I didn't know, it just makes me wonder where's the money coming from for those grants. And if we want to actually get into that kind of a conversation here. Or in this report. So, and then two, I'm still. I don't think it's a major concern, but I am still sort of stuck on this point. Around the report where it talks about the staff that's needed. For the bureau. And then whether or not it really lines up with the data integration plan. I feel like we're being a little too prescriptive. And I know we've had conversations about that. Many times. And I'm just still not quite there. Maybe everybody else is, but. No, you know, Monica. I was my reaction reading this, this detailed section right now. Is that it is a little. It's a, I don't, I'm, I'm trying to, I'm trying to understand like this whole, I was also like struck by the grant language. For instance, the language of making it mandatory. Right. And, um, And then who's deciding what and what's the relationships. And I'll be it, you know, I know you guys are writing it with similar challenges that I was faced with. And I tried to write the section one, which was quickly realized we hadn't yet. Landed as a panel on what is the relationship right as a guide. Is it, is it input? Is it advisory? Is it direct? Right. Um, how much are we insulating? Or this executive direct, you know, even the language we're using isn't, I, I, you know, I use saying the policy side of this is. Coven to the board. The policy committee on page, um. Bottom of page two, top of page three. It's called the policy committee. Is that the board? Or something else. I think this is where the overlap between the NCJRP project and art, the art, the art app report for the bureau is. Isn't as clear because. I think what Karen mentioned is this. Section that starts sort of. With nuts and bolts is really what the NCJRP had in mind as the way it was going to structure the work. Isn't that right, Karen? Yeah. So it's a, it's. That's when you're reading all of that is really. The NCJRP project. In more descriptive detail that. But I saw you. Yes, I would say yes, but the, and I think the policy committee though isn't. In the way I look at this has nothing to do. I'm going to shut off my video again. Has nothing to do with the governance structure of the office. It really has to do with the policies of the data sharing. So when, when we look at the policy committee and the requirements committee, it's really those people that have to get together to decide. What their policies say. And what they can do around data sharing. So this is all about the data itself and how we share data between and among. The department's ADS and the office. And whoever else. And for public transparency, whoever else. Is to use the data to do analysis. So the policy committee is really about. The policy execs and the tech people getting together to say, we're going to put together a charter around data sharing. We're going to have interagency agreements and MOU that speaks to our data sharing with. With whomever. Whoever it's going to be. And I'm not sure a strategic plan needs to be laid out here, but it may need to be laid out because what we may find out is that departments can't share certain data. You know, we've talked about this. If they're not collecting it. If it's not easily extractable, they may need. So you look at requirements. The requirements committee and they talk about data needs and data gaps and opportunities for technological improvements. So in my, in my mind, the strategic plan has to do with those things. What more do we need? What data do we need? How do we get it? Is it just that it has to be entered into the system? Or is it that we need to make technological improvements in the systems to be able to collect that data? So in my world, the requirements committee is part of that strategic planning process and what we need. And then the architecture is what do we need? System wise and technology wise. I think he called it a, I think he called it, let me see if I can find his language. It was kind of the build. You know, is this something that you see as the, how we build it? Where did he put it? And I said to him, I'm not sure what that means, but I think that's, I think that's what we're talking about. Is building the system. If there's something that needs to be done. Are there, is there another sheet where you still spell out all the various members of these committees? Like it doesn't really mean much to me. And I'm in government who you consider stakeholders and executives and managements. Like in the context of what the system we're trying to collect, the criminal, juvenile justice system. And the architects, like are there, are they the same people? Not necessarily. So when we first started putting this together. Oh, and you're talking to someone that is really an amateur when it comes to describing all this. And Monica, I'm going to ask for your help. Is we really need, so when we're talking about data sharing agreements and creating a charter, we really need to have like the policy execs in the department to say, yes, we need someone with authority to say, yes, you're going to be sharing this data. And here's the data you're going to be sharing. So whether it's a commissioner or a commissioner's designee. I'm looking at you, Monica, to either nod your head. If that's what we were talking or the business person in the department. Right. And then we need the tech person. So each department in AHS has an ADS person attached to it. Who does the tech side of it? So they're the liaisons between the department, their data and ADS. And that person has to be involved because they know the technology side of it. So we need someone that knows how to. We need someone with authority that can, that can. Authorize the sharing of the data. So we need that whole governance piece, the nuts and bolts governance piece to authorize the sharing of the data. Then we need a requirements committee. And the requirements committee are those people that know how the data are coded because they're coded differently and everyone's different system. Because when you ask for a piece of data, so when I asked for data from Monica, I might say, Hey, I want the person's name and address, gender, date of birth. And it might, the words they use to code that data might say something like N, A, M, F, T. First name. So someone has to tell me what that's what that is for them to be able to translate what I need into their language for coding of the data. And there's some that are really like when we look at law enforcement data, sometimes it's really hard to tell what those codes mean. I'm going to let Monica speak here. Yeah. Monica. Thanks. I'm trying to help, but Karen, if I'm, if I'm really not saying something that's accurate, then please just stop me. But the way, the way I'm looking at this, because I think we're really, we're trying to integrate two different projects because ultimately these projects have the same goal. And I see in number one, right? If we're in the act 65 report and we look at number one, the office should work with the agency of digital services enterprise unit to the national criminal justice reform project. The national criminal justice reform project is doing all the things that Karen is talking about. It's part of that project. And what we're saying is, hey, don't forget to go work with that project over there because it's going to help further all of the goals that the bureau has and help support the bureau's work. The bureau is going to do it. And ask a clarifying question because I haven't heard this say, I think there's a presumption of familiarity with the NCJ RP's work. Is it as expansive in terms of what is trying to integrate as far as the types of data points that we've previously identified in the reports or is it specifically focused on one section of that system involvement in the court systems? I think what it's doing is, is creating the one. I'm not sure the answer to that question. I think I, but I also, I think it's creating the actual architecture and the system that could help do what we need to do for our DAP. Okay, but, but that is important. I got clarifications like how, like if we're basing our design on what they've designed, but if they've designed only a DOC sort of look or law enforcement look or some others way to just piece it, we need to know what hasn't been considered. I know our DAP has presented a very, I mean, we were asked right to identify all discretionary, we did identify all the discretionary decision making points. We've prioritized the data collection points within. I know we'll, they'll have to start off with an even smaller data set, right? But I don't know the answer. I understand though that it is not as comprehensive as what we have pitched. Karen, do you know the answer? Well, I think, I think if we're starting small, the way the AISP has suggested we smart start and look at the data sets that are available for use. I think Robin, in, in reading those first, one of those first points Robin went through, you know, we can get the judiciary data, we can get the DOC public data set. We can get Niber's data. So we're talking about all those data sets. So I would say primarily we would be starting in the criminal justice system. And with AHS type data, simply because that's what we can get our hands on at this point. And I'm, and, and I'm not sure. And I think some of it will be determined when we get that data set. So we're talking about that governance and tech group together to talk about what is available. And find out what is available for sharing. But it really lays the foundation for any kind of data sharing, whether it's NCJRP or whether it's RDAP, it lays the foundation for that to be able to happen. So if we, if we, if you said, if you said to us, we don't want to work with NCJRP at all. We don't want to have anything to do with them. You'd still have to do this process. So am I understanding it correctly that base, basically the NCJRP project, which, which I haven't looked at, at the materials I have relevant to that in a while. But it sounds to me like that data integration project is, is at a minimum, initially going to be dealing with currently existing data. And so the idea is coordinate with the NCJRP project because RDAP should have the ability to integrate that same data and then build off of it afterwards if necessary or desirable. I mean, is that, am I sort of understanding that at least on a very superficial level correctly? I would say yes. I would say yes. So, so the other data, you know, so if we're talking about scalability or increasing access to other data sets, the foundation will be built with a certain data set or certain several data sets, criminal justice data that can then be expanded to other data sets that Rebecca, to your point, would hopefully include the other departments and agencies that RDAP would want to get data from. But we have to build the foundation to be able to do that, whether it's NCJRP or RDAP, there has to be a foundation built. I understand. I just, I just am trying to understand what this, this where this plan is coming from, from what context or perspective. And I heard you say AHS data and you said NIBRS, but can you just remind me what NIBRS is? What kind of data? Sure. Yeah, it's the national incident based reporting system data that our law enforcement agencies report to the FBI. Which would include, you don't have to give me a comprehensive. Just, it is, it's pre, pre conviction and post conviction sentencing. No, no, no, no, no, it's, it's, it's arrest for a certain data set for arrests. They call them part A crimes and part B crimes. It's a limited data set for law enforcement. We would hope eventually when Val course set up, if it ever it is that we'd have access to that data as well. But right now this is what we can get our hands on. Are they a model which is sensitive to addressing racial equities and data collection and aggregation? Well, it's useful when you're looking at arrests for certain crimes. Yes, absolutely. No, I mean, not what the data is useful towards the question of racial inequities. I mean that the actual build, the way that they've designed this conceptualize the organization of whatever it is approaching the actual project, have they approached it with a racial equities consciousness? And you know, has the, has the NCRJP's work in this regard in Vermont, the parallel project, same question? No, no. And have you integrated sort of that piece of it, how to address the racial equities piece that AISP addressed into this? Well, that's what Wichee and I have been trying to do. And as we laid this out, as we've laid this out, he is, he's reviewed it and I'm not sure. And Julio, I had asked before, if you wanted to say a few words about the comments you made, because I have not looked at what you wrote into the data integration plan. But that's what Wichee and I were talking about is what more needs to be added here for the ARDAP piece. And Julio is not here at the moment. Oh, he is here. Julio, Julio's on the phone. He's on the phone. Yeah. Rebecca, you asked a great question. I think that what's on the page is kind of a necessary first step or series of steps to be able to identify what sorts of data are available and whether they're in useable formats for the Bureau. And part of that exercise also feeds into what the text calls a gap analysis, which is a description of the difference between what is in the existing data sets and what the Bureau wants. It is true that she's given example of different examples of a pre-existing law enforcement databases because that's really kind of the state of the data out there. And the approach to that's outlined about how you go about seeing what's there and whether or to what extent any of it is useful. I can say from my experience in dealing with similar projects in other jurisdictions is a pretty standard way of doing it. In a similar way, we were as part of a public health committee and we were talking about how to access different health databases about different parts of Vermont. The process that's outlined here that I took a look at is very similar. There would just be different databases that were offered as examples, but identifying the inventory of data and then also what sometimes is called the data dictionary, which is a description of not just what elements are in the database, but how the databases are structured and how they relate to each other so that you can have a better picture of like, is there anything in here that already exists from a historical basis or not ongoing basis that's useful to us? And then that gap analysis says, well, we know we want this stuff. And here's where it falls short. Here's that maybe in the short run, for our purposes, it might be better to collect that data in a different way. So you can kind of have different phases where you operate initially on the imperfect data that you have, how well that works for you, and then you can kind of scope out where you want to go and how practical it is to collect the data in different more usable ways. Because those databases, you are absolutely right, we're not designed for types of information about arrest, principally, for neighbors. I appreciate that. And I dive into, and I see that the deliverables in this requirements committee. You know, I think my comment to that is it's key that the makeup of that, of the committees, and maybe more than one committee, maybe it's the requirements committee, I have to look at this closer, but it should not be just limited to the executive management decision makers who are leading these organizations that have the data that you need to have extracted and share, but to actually include others who can provide some, again, specifically with the perspectives of racial inequities, with that data dictionary and gap analysis perspective, right? Because if we just have government people talking about it and identifying gaps, Julio, do you know if that, in terms of how that's been done, in terms of integrating committee membership, to make sure those perspectives are captured? Rebecca, can I bring Monica in? She's got her hand up. Okay, Monica. Monica's changed her comments like three or four times since she raised her hands. Well, just, you know, because the conversation's been going on, so I'm just, you know, trying to react or add value if I can. But the reason I raised my hand actually goes back to a question you raised, Rebecca, around N-C-G-R-P and really having that equity-centered conversation. And, you know, Karen answered that it didn't. It didn't at the time. I don't think that that doesn't mean there's still not a possibility in trying to bring that in. You know, it just, it was, this project was, that project was started four years ago, something along those lines, right? So, and it's still, you know, kind of getting itself off the ground in some ways, even after four years. So I think there's a really good opportunity for that conversation to take place. My other sense here is that we have two distinct projects that have similar goals, but not the same goal. And N-C-G-R-P is going to need all the structure that's written in this document. And R-DAP may or may not need, right? There's definitely going to be some crossover, and I would say that's going to be a crossover and I would say N-C-G-R-P to work because it's probably going to continue and move a little faster than the R-DAP work and the creation of this bureau can really provide a lot of support and guidance and resource to the office once it is established. I think what I'm noticing is we haven't really showed what the integration is and what's what's supposed to be separate. But I say that and then I really want Karen to respond to what I just put out there. About the part that's integrated and the part that's separate. Yeah, and whether and just like the ability, I think for the project to, you know, have these conversations about racial equity in addition moving forward. Oh, I think it's entirely possible. In fact, if we went back to the N-C-G-R-P team that's been meeting, a lot of them are on R-DAP. I think it would be a big absolutely. I don't think that would be an easy conversation, I think, to move in that direction or to incorporate that into the thought process around the data sharing piece and the data integration piece. I certainly haven't looked at the data, what kind of, what the integration between the two projects are. I just, I truly see what N-C-G-R-P is thinking through around data integration. This has been a cry from so many people for so long to have data integrated and my joke has been for years. I've been with CRG for, oh my gosh, I think it was seven years last week. My joke has been that data integration's name is Robin because Robin is the only one that gets all these data sets and has found ways to, she understands what the coding, the codes are and she understands how to integrate different data sets so she can actually do analysis on and come up with more complex ways to analyze the data and that's not okay. It's not okay that our data integration is done by an individual person. We need to have a system in place where all the players that need to play and need to agree to do this are at the table together. So I don't think that having a racial equity lens incorporated into this work is far-fetched at all. I think it's something that everyone on the N-C-G-R-P team would agree to and in fact has agreed to it because our TA, our TA provider who's with the National Criminal Justice Association and National Governors Association advocated for the Arnold Ventures to continue to fund the TA from Moe for our DAPS specifically and Arnold Ventures agreed to that. So they were gonna shorten their contract and said, no, no, we don't wanna stop this. We wanna be able to provide Moe to consult with this team if they need it. So they've extended their contract through June of next year for that specific person purpose. So Moe can talk to this team as needed. And I've always seen this as regardless of who's doing data integration, how we're doing data integration, what data you want, what data you don't want. To me, this is what needs to be done so that data integration can actually happen, so that data sharing and data integration can actually happen. It's been a really important piece of the work of the NCJRP, Vermont team, the Vermont team that came together. And regardless of what studies we did from the data, the fact that we needed people to share data and make as much of it transparent as possible has been the underlying drive really for this project. Arnold Ventures wanted us to come up with a policy or practice change, and so we did. But the primary goal of this group has been to get data useful to a larger group of people and transparent as much as possible and to figure out what data are still needed from what agencies and offices and departments. So I just think it's, you know, whether it's, and Richie and I, when we, you know, we're making comments back and forth, put in there that, you know, there needs to be more community engagement. You'll see some of our notes on the side saying, you know, do we incorporate community here? Is this the place we do it? You know, we need stakeholders and community here. So we're trying to figure out how and where that gets incorporated. And so it's an ongoing, for me, it's an ongoing thought process around what, what more needs to be said. So I would encourage you to go through it and add, you know, whether it's the governing body of the office or whether it's the office staff themselves or the executive director of the office or community stakeholders, I'd encourage you to add that language in there because I think that's really important. I feel like this is the place where it's another, one of those statements of principle that you've been talking about, Rebecca, that somewhere in this body and the body of this particular document, fairly, fairly early on needs to be a statement about, oh, I don't know, balancing. No, I don't even want to go there. That community members and their concerns around various matters need to be built into this at every possible step. And that something like that as a principle needs to be stated early on, I think it's going to be very difficult for us to necessarily know what each step of that will be. Just a thought. Well, and I hate to be a wet blanket but I feel the need here to play devil's advocate just a little bit and maybe it's around, you know, do we need to define community member because I just have this thought in my head that somewhere along the line, whether either this is presented to the legislature or someone reads it, they're going to say, well, what do you mean by community member? And I just think that's a really important piece to figure out because community is a really broad term. Well, we've already talked about it earlier in the document that different places being people with lived experience among other things in various realm. But yeah, Evan. Yeah, I agree with what you're saying, Aiton, that I think it's really important for the community members who, for community members to be heard in the issues that this group is going to address. But I also think that it might be helpful to identify someplace that, you know, this entity also needs to, in addition to being independent, I think it needs to be perceived as being impartial. And so I think that however this data entity is structured, it has to be done in a way where no one could perceive or we could minimize the chance that someone could accuse any individual, whether it's community member or state entity, of sort of having a disproportionate representation or disproportionate voice, and then that they're therefore using this group for agenda setting purposes. Because I think that that could also lead the people who should really be listening to what the data this entity reports out saying, you know, being unnecessarily skeptical. And I just want to make sure we do this in a way where skepticism is at a minimum so that it can build trust that what it's saying is, you know, is heard. Yep. In any event, this is all gotta, I'd like this all to come up tomorrow in some very coherent fashion. I think this needs to come up to the full body. This is the other big part. This is the other big part. And tonight that's all I really want to do is address those. I don't, I personally as chair don't want to really go that much further without hearing from our compatriots. I think we've gone very far. And I have to admit to a certain level of discomfort with going much further without hearing from them. I definitely agree with that. That other folks, it would be an appropriate time for other folks to chime in and hear what we've been up to. Yeah. I mean, this is a huge body of work so far. Frankly. Karen, thanks for putting all that stuff together that we had talked about. Thank you and Robin and witchy. Thank you very much for getting that together. I really appreciate that. I would not have been able to do anything about that. I would have liked drawn pictures. Well, it's a work in progress. So, before we leave this subject and I know. Maybe you want to shift broader, but before we leave the subject in terms of what. I see also missing from this. Or from pulling in the perspective from NC. Thank you. Thank you. You know, again, we've already talked about the racial equities piece. Appreciate you talking about the criminal justice side of it, but just to make it explicit of also. The gap. Is the juvenile system perspective, right? And how to what extent, if any considerations. You know, you know, you know, you know, collection analysis of that system changes what's presented here as well. But yes, I agree with that. What everyone is saying here in terms of, of them, of stressing the point of, of independence and impartiality. How those are two critically different. Pieces that we need to stress. And I also like, you know, you're telling your point, which is referencing community members and what we mean. And, and I think Julio references earlier and others. We're looking at a particular. Perspective that could, I mean, I hear a lot of like, oh, we have to make sure we have the experts. I think whether it's experts or lay people perspectives and what rules. One or the other or both may have at any one of these committee levels of this. I think the point is, is that it be considered that that's a critical piece of how we get those checks in. I'm just very weary. Frankly, and I've showed it before that this organization and Karen, I understand it's critically important. I'm, I'm weary because of its heavy, heavy lean impartiality towards building database, sharing, promoting law enforcement interests and public safety interests, right. And not with an interest in addressing and dealing with the biases and data systems, you know, and racial biases specifically. So that's, that's just where I'm coming from with this. Four years. What have been the, tell us what are the obstacles. Well, you don't want to go into that. And this part of the project really hasn't been going on for four years. There were a lot of other things that were happening. I wouldn't even, it wasn't related to this particular piece of the project. One more thing I just want to point out with this subcommittee is just the membership of, of who's been involved. I know people have been saying repeatedly that a lot of the, a lot of the panel members on our DAP have been a part of this, but I can say that it has not been a feeling by the office of the defender general that it's been an impartial. It's been a reflection. It's been, it's been slanted and partial towards law enforcement. And so I just share that. And so I'll take a closer look and see, but I can't promise that I'll have a full ability to say yay or nay by tomorrow night. This from the defender. You don't need to. Yeah. You don't need to. So what are you asking tomorrow night from, for this part in terms of what we want the panel to consider and give us input on? What part of this? Yeah. What part of the nuts and bolts piece of it? Are we bringing forward to the panel tomorrow night? I'm not sure that's just a part. I thought we would bring this forward to them. I mean, I'm going to send out an email in the morning, which is a little late, but, you know, everybody's, they did get an email about reading stuff as it was going along. So I'm just going to remind folks of that. I wasn't thinking of splitting us down in any particular way beyond this. I mean, just honestly, that really wasn't. What I was thinking. I mean, I mean, I'm not close to it. I, you know, I don't want to give you that impression, but it wasn't what I had in mind. Okay. So just to clarify my question again with another question. Are we, are we being asked, you know, with this, this. This language that we're reviewing tonight. And I understand it's rough. Are we being asked, are you proposing that this language will be inserted in the report? Or is it still too rough draft of a form to even say that, that we're getting there? That it's, it's, we're. Or is it that the rest? I would say we're getting there. I don't think, you know, I don't think things are, I mean, we were just talking before about other parts of the report that are very rough that. I don't think we need a ironing out. I don't think this is any different. Well, and I guess I feel the need to address the comment you just made, Rebecca. I actually don't know where your office would get the idea. The NCJRP was law enforcement focused or biased because it's had nothing to do with law enforcement. It really started out as an idea around pretrial services pending pretrial services. So if, if you see that is tainted towards law enforcement, sure. But it was really about pretrial services and making sure people got their needs met when they had mental health and substance abuse issues. That's where the whole thing started. And the first study that happened was Robin did a retrospective study on the Ohio risk and needs assessment and found that it didn't work in Vermont. And that's where the project got dropped. It was originally going to be piloted in two areas in the state to see the PSA. I just want, I just need to, it wasn't the or asset with the. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. Yes. I just wanted to say that because that's the risk tool that the department uses every day. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. So the, the Arnold tool, which is the public safety assessment to see if it made any difference in Vermont. So we're going to pilot it in two sites, with the, with the approval and contributions from the public defenders, the state's attorneys and the courts. And then hire someone to actually do those risk assessments and if it works, see if it was something that could be done across the state. It didn't work. COVID hit. And then, and then the project shifted because the retrospective study didn't work. And it was shown that failures to appear, something that we've talked about in the violations of conditions of release, subcommittee of the sentencing commission, you know, we found that not violation, the failures to appear were about 6%. So what were we trying to fix here? So then we switched to, let's just focus on data integration then. And so we came up with this whole plan for data integration, because that's what people really wanted. And a Arnold venture said, no, we don't want you just focusing on that. We want you to do a study. So the study turned into writing a research design for looking at what happened during COVID, which is kind of a natural experiment time between citations and custodial arrests. Who got arrested? When did they get arrested? Who, who was, who was released? And it did have a racial lens on it to see if there was a difference in who got custodial arrested and who was released on a citation. So that did have a racial lens on it. And so we wrote the design and Marshall's been invited to all these meetings. And I think Matt has, I think Matt has been on the list as well. And they've attended some. And so, But not on the data integration piece for sure. They haven't been a part of that. And I, and I should adjust my comments to you specifically on the, on what's relevant here for the ARDA panel is the data integration piece. And maybe it's helpful to hear, to say who is on, who's been a part of that project? Like who has been going to the meetings and whose, whose voices have been part of this plan, I think should be shared. I have no, we have no problem sharing it. I'm not the head of it. I'm just one of the worker bees on it. Judge Greerson, Monica, me, Pepper, Willa Farrell has been on it. And was very integral to the whole initial focus that we had on pretrial services. And David share was there too, for a lot of it, David share. Yeah, it was there for a lot of it. Chris Herrick is the one that really called the meetings. And I got, I can't, I'm blanking on his last name, but there was a fellow that worked over at DPS Dean was another person that was integral to the. Yeah, he was there. I, their ADS data guy. ADS data guy that was, and now Darwin Thompson is the ADS data guy. So he's been peripherally involved in this. Yeah, I would say that. For group. Right. And all those, it's not like we had a subcommittee like this group, this to come up with that data integration plan. The whole NCJRP group was, has always been invited to participate in putting all those materials together. So. I am, I'm kind of disadvantaged because I'm not a member of that group, but I am happy to. Get Marshall or Matt in on one of these, or at least their direct input to share. But in any event, I appreciate you sharing the details. I think it does highlight the fact that we haven't had any representatives from the juvenile justice side on it. Well, DCF, but others. Involved and certainly not in our depth. Community members voice in there. I'm not, I'm not dismissing the work or that none of its relevant. I appreciate, you know, and Julio clarifying the different ways and the structure of thinking about it. I do appreciate it. It's just that I really, when I want to understand what we're going into tomorrow. Because I, I'm just sharing from the defender general's perspective, if it's, if it's that we are going to. Integrate our nuts and bolts section as being in lock step with NCRJP's project on data integration, then that is going to be a problem because I can't, I don't believe certainly I'll, my understanding from Matt and Marshall's end, but certainly mine here, like I haven't, I haven't heard the, you know, and I'm hearing from you guys that there isn't really a, a complete presentation of what is different, what isn't, there's admissions that there are holes that are, there isn't a perfect match of all fours about our work has been done. And so I am not prepared certainly by tomorrow, probably not by our November deadline to wholesale commit to integrating the NCRJP's project in here. If that's what we're going to ask tomorrow's meeting on, because it's critical to the language you have here, that's what I'm getting at Etan, or are we pulling out general principles, right? So this, these structural ideas, committees, right? What should be the deliverables within? I would support that. I just want to make sure we're not committing to linking ourselves up to some other projects work when the panel hasn't been fully I don't know, included or presented with what are the similarities or differences? I mean, we're just, you know, I understand there's a lot of similarities. I just am not comfortable with wholesale adoption of it in our, in our report. And I'll certainly share the same tomorrow with the panel if asked. Okay. I think that's all we can do at this point. Evan. Yeah, I just wanted to, I just wanted to say that I would, I did not interpret, I mean, I didn't interpret this, this number one here in the data, data integration document is as obligating the office to follow the NCRG plan in lockstep. I mean, it says it should work with the ADS digital service and to present liaison to that project. It should engage in the same type of exercise that that project is engaged in, in which Julio has explained seems to be pretty plain vanilla in terms of a data integration project. But I would think that the office, if it determines that, hey, actually we're doing something a little bit different, we need to customize it in a certain way. I think it would and should have the ability to do that. I interpret this document as saying, hey, there's another entity out there that's doing a data integration plan. It seems like a pretty standard plan. The two entities should communicate with one another to make the exercise more efficient, especially since it took the NCJRP many years, let this office borrow from that work and hopefully cut down on that time. I mean, that's how I, that's how I interpret this. Maybe I'm interpreting and getting correctly, but that's, I don't see it as any more binding than that, but I guess it could be correct. We should make that clear then, or somehow, because I don't, I don't, I don't see how, it just seems a little bit more of a default in overlapping. But I would also make sure that there's sort of a separation, a distinct separation between that work and, and so that there's no implicit suggestion that we are adopting it wholesale, because I do think it's, it's, it's work, it's been done. It's alongside parallel, but not complete substitute. Okay. This is going to be. I just want to just fine with that. I don't, yeah, I think what Evan said is perfectly fine. It doesn't have to be lockstep, but we should learn from each other. Sure. Then we're focusing on some language that's missing. And some concept that's missing. I would really like that brought up tomorrow night. If that's all right. So, um, in terms of how much of this, I, I can't really answer that. I mean, how much of this is, you know, definitely making it into the report. I, I, we haven't talked to the other half of the panel yet. So I can, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. Um, I don't want to go into this again. I want to put forward. I'm really uncomfortable going too much further. Without the rest of the panel. Um, bringing this conversation to them. Is perfectly fine. I, and I would hope it would go to them. But with just the working group, I think we're at a moment. That's what I'm saying. That's all. Um, Um, does any, is there another issue here separate from this, that people want to discuss tonight with the intent of, um, Ha, focusing on what needs to be said tomorrow. No. Go ahead. This is a little unrelated to what we've been talking about for the last half an hour, but I figured I'd bring it up regarding last month. Um, and I'm not sure if that's the case, but I'm not sure if that's the case. Um, because Tyler was at the full R that meeting and I wasn't. Um, but I know that there had been some feedback, um, regarding our, the name of being social justice instead of racial justice. I'm wondering if we feel like they, um, that issue was resolved. And I was looking through the meeting notes of last month's meeting. Um, I'm wondering if we feel like there's any other issues in moving forward. Um, because if so, you know, I'm wondering if we. Just have a compromise if it's brought up again, where we just say racial and social justice just to be. Um, Just to, just to amend it. If we think it's going to come up again, but. Uh, You want to do that before tomorrow. No, I was just bringing it up as that as a suggestion. I just wanted to hear that feedback again. Uh, that I would be okay with that. I think Tyler would be okay with that, et cetera. And I just didn't know if it was, um, going to be brought up again by community members or if the issue had been resolved. And if they had. Um, Kind of. So that's just, that's just a suggestion. Um, and if you, if the, you know, we don't like it, no problem not married to it, but it was just a suggestion if it comes up again. Okay. Thank you. Anything else. We've got a good list here. Should be an interesting meeting tomorrow night. Yeah, we're almost there. And I did. And, you know, thanks everyone for, for hearing my questions and answering and clarifying. I do think before we all leave out, I just want to share. I think we really are. We'll be able to get a consensus on a lot of these points. You know, oh yeah. And a lot of this just in the details. In fact, I think we are on, on, on what we just talked about for the last piece here, the nuts and bolts and the connection to and see JRP Karen. I'm hearing. I mean, we're all, we're almost on the same page over there. We don't, we're not going to be committing to it. There's no need, but there's obvious usefulness to acknowledge some, some parallel efforts out there. Right. And resources. So, um, I think this is all good. It just helps me to understand to where this is coming from. So thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. And I'm, you know, as far as your office goes, I'm happy to meet with you, Matt and Marshall. And I'm sure Monica would be too. And just talk things through if there's some misunderstanding or some concerns. Sure. Thanks. Yeah. I do not want to end the meeting before everybody has gotten in everything they want to get in. But I also want to move us along. I'm good. I'm good as well. You're good. Okay. Elizabeth. Okay. Monica, we're all like. Great. All right. Then I'm hoping you will all speak up as much tomorrow as you did tonight. Um, because we're really going to, you know, put this all in front of the entire body. Um, and get. I mean, my experience has been with the other two reports we've done. When we get to this moment, people always somebody brings up something I had no thought of before. And I just sort of look at them. Initially with annoyance because it means more work. And then secondly, I'm like, Oh, that was important. Um, so I'm sort of feeling like that may happen again. And I just want to put that out there. And I will see you all tomorrow at six. Great. Have a great night, everyone. Thanks everybody. This was good.