 Let's start recording and move on to the meeting of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panels. Act 65 working group said three times fast. Let's just do some introductions. Rebecca, why don't you start because I know you're on the phone. Thanks, Eitan. It's Rebecca Turner from the Center General Office. And Robin. Robin Joy, crime research group. Okay, Monica. Monica Weaver, Department of Corrections. Thank you, Evan. Evan Meenan with the Vermont Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. Thank you. Karen. Karen Gannett with the crime research group. Great. Ian. Ian Loris working with Eitan as a summer system. Dr. Crocker, you're muted. Now there you are. I'm University of Vermont and National Center on Restorative Justice. Thank you. And Susanna. Hi, Susanna Davis, Racial Equity Director. Great. Welcome. I am a little like we need the panel, but or, you know, some larger subset, but we don't really have a rule as to what a quorum looks like with the working group. That may be something that we want to discuss, Susanna. I was just going to mention, I was just going to mention, I think, which you might be joining around 6.30 or something. I think he has a standing thing on Monday, so that will add at least one to our number. Thank you. So I think we just go ahead with where we're at. My, I want to just continue the conversation, obviously, which is, you know, sort of what we were doing last summer with last summer's working group, although we were calling it a subcommittee. David Cher, and I think this is what Karen was referring to out. David's just texted me, technical difficulty, hopefully on soon. You got to love the modern age. In any event, I will steal some of David's thunder, just because it was really where I wanted to start. He had given us, which we had all sort of nodded our heads and gone great, to an action item, which was to look over the report that we put forth in December of last year that has, in fact, gotten us to this moment, and then to look at Act 65, specifically the page 18 through 23, which are the pages that refer to the RDAF, and to the report that we have to do, excuse me, for November, and that we then look at answering question three, which was about the scope of the body that we are proposing. So if there are no objections, oh, hi, David. If there are no objections, I would suggest picking up that conversation from that point. I'm hoping everyone had time to look over these, those links and documents that I sent. I would start by being very, as the chair of the panel, there's a certain conservatism that's required of me, and I mean that in the, not in the Republican, Democrat, 21st century American way, I mean it in the sense of conservatorship that I am to go with the bottom line on something, and if people want to go beyond that, that's fine, but that's not necessarily my position. I will explain what I mean, and that is to say, when I read these, I look at the report from December of last year, and it's between the bottom of page four and the top of page nine are the prioritized lists of data that we had at that point decided were critical, although I should also point out that the non-prioritized stuff was considered important too. Robin and CRG did a huge bit of work in finding out what data is, exists, what data do not exist, what data would be difficult to find, and so on. Those are in that, those tables, and my suggestion following on what David's proposed action item was, would be what we start with, with this body, are those prioritized bits of data. I say that for a number of reasons. First of all, it's not our job to expand lists into the future. That's not the job of the panel, and it's not the job of the working group. Our job is simply to answer the five questions or topic areas that are put forth in Act 65. What Curtis said last week was very provocative, and I thought very, very interesting. Hi, Witchie, but we're a legislative body, and the kind of partnership with the private sector that he was proposing is something that, I mean, I would defer to David and to, I guess, Evan and Rebecca, and all of the people who do law about whether that's even possible. This is not a private body, and I mean, I know I'm certainly not in any position to go walking up to people I don't know with my handout. I hate doing that, and I'm not good at it, and I don't know how to do it. But I'm not sure that's also the job of the ARDAP. We have a very local circumscribed responsibility that is in that act, and my position that I'm going to take, that we can then work off of. I mean, I'm not saying this as, you know, I necessarily believe what I'm saying. I'm saying that procedurally, we've been given a document from which to work, a law, and that's that. I'm shutting up now. Hey, Tom, this is Rebecca. Sure. Hi. Hi, so I hear two points in your opening, which is, A, you proposed that we follow what we decided in our past report, which was identifying and going forward with the previously identified questions, high priority answers that we want. Whoops. Sorry. I think you went away. Just when you were saying something important. Yeah, no, I'm here. I support, I second your point, so we should not reinvent the wheel and move forward from where our report left off, which is specifically on identifying the previous data collection points we wanted, identified as high priority, without ignoring the fact that we also identified other ones. The second point I heard you say was the issue of whether or not we wanted to discuss further or explore the idea of a privately funded data entity. If that's what I understood, Curtis would say something alternatively funded, some alternative funding to the government funding. And I think that I'm at this point close to go down that route only because that just opens up a whole nother can of warmth of accountability and questions of protection of this data that I don't know where to begin. And I certainly don't have a model that I can turn to, and maybe others have somewhere for us to look, where some private entity did a great job taking that kind of level and amount of data and making sure that the people, the data is being covered with their privacy protection, for sure. I just don't know. But at this point, I would agree that this is a government entity, whether it's a new entity or whether we identify a place within a current determination. Okay. Thank you. Evan. So I definitely agree with Rebecca about the private entity bit. I have some hesitancy surrounding that. I also agree with the both of you that to the degree that we can rely on the previous report to answer some of these questions, I think that's a great idea. And Eitan, I tend to be conservative with these assignments as well, especially when we get a tight deadline. And so from my perspective, if we can answer these five questions from a high level perspective or a general perspective, that would be a good thing. It also has the advantage of allowing the Bureau some flexibility in how it finishes standing up the organization, and it gives it a little bit more ownership and possibly opportunity. Well, I don't think they're going to need buy-in. I think they'll be all over this, but there are some advantages to that as well. And so looking at the five questions and having reviewed the December report again, in my mind, it looks like the December report did a pretty decent job of answering questions two and three. I think that question one, there's probably still some things that we need to discuss, but my guess is at a minimum, folks would be on board with having some type of statement of independence in the enabling legislation similar to the statement that appears in Susanna's enabling legislation. I know that she's technically part of the executive branch, but there is some nice language there about independence that I think is good if it ends up being part of the executive branch. And so it seems to me like questions four and five are the ones that might be the most difficult to answer. And just being honest are probably the ones that I'm least qualified to help answer. But maybe those are the ones that whoever ends up staffing the bureau will be able to help flush out if they're given enough flexibility by the legislature to do so. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Now, Rebecca, just as you both, I was not saying I supported what Curtis was saying. I was saying I thought it was outside the bounds of what we can do. Witchie. Yeah. So just going along the lines of what we're talking about here, I had a chance to read through the December report and through the Act 65 language. I do agree that some stuff is already starting to be answered through that December report. Where I really struggle, though, is that there's no exact why are we doing this. There's a general why of like, oh, trying to find disparities. That's great and all, but pick among the many. So I think what's missing here is that we don't know what the bureau is doing. We don't know what the charges are. And then without knowing what the charges are and what is it that they're going to investigate? What program is it that they're going to improve, et cetera, which is sort of the questions that come from the toolkit. I think without that, we can't necessarily answer what data is missing or how we're going to use the data or how that data needs to have, like what kind of compliance that data needs to have. So I think if anything, when we talk about scope and we're answering that number three, I think, right, that number three, yeah, we should really, like, I think the general scope is really set there. Like we don't need new language that's already there, but we need to figure out what is the first five years of that bureau? What are they supposed to be doing? And I think once we answer that, we can answer a lot of the other questions. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, go ahead. I think that's a really good point at which he just raised because when I went back and I read the report, it had a lot of information that the bureau is that we would like the bureau to collect. And I know that in from a very general perspective, the idea is to identify where racial disparities in the criminal justice system might be present and what the causes of those might be. But it was not entirely clear to me how the bureau was going to use the data that we wanted them to collect to answer some of those specific questions, like how that and I assume that was just me not understanding how to do that level of data analysis because I'm not a researcher. But I think maybe that is I think that point is maybe covered in what which he was trying to say. And so I appreciate that point. Okay. Monica. Yeah, sort of building off of that when I was looking at the AISP documents and thinking about mission and what the bureau would do. One of the things that sort of came up for me, similar to what Evan was saying as well, is the ultimate goal to recommend policy change, to enact policy change, to really you know, dive into an area and really understand much more in depth than we already do, what might be causing a particular disparity and then work to address that. I think that gets to some of the conversation we've been having. But it's not it's not as clearly outlined in any of the documents. Really, the bureau is just supposed to collect and analyze data. But the purpose is the ultimate end goal is it isn't stated as clearly. I think we all think we know what it is, but it isn't stated as clearly. Okay. I mean, I was sort of working on the assumption that it's what we've been doing since 2017 just amplified. Yeah, I am too. But the Act 64 doesn't make that same connection. Because it says the legislative charge of the bureau would be to collect and analyze data related to systemic racial bias and disparities. That's what that bureau does. So if we were going to write a mission, we would certainly want to be like, to what end are we collecting? Is that bureau collecting and analyzing that data? This is Rebecca. I just wanted to weigh in. I love what I'm hearing from Evan and Witchie and Monica. It's certainly something when I was reviewing AISP, but also specifically some of the spinoff states that have been trying to apply some of the guidance that AISP has set out, specifically I'm thinking about Iowa, and where there is sort of this overall mandate that we've been working on in the book for, which is fundamentally trying to understand dismantle white supremacy and existence. But when I think I'm hearing folks who are throwing with support, I think that this could be critical work that our subcommittee does in the next few weeks is identifying a set number of guiding principles and that we would want to be the structure within which, whether we follow that suggestion I threw out there last week, the governing body overseeing and directing the executive director and staff. Again, that's just a model to feel this to anchor this, but that could be the principles we identify as the overarching critical principles create the finite framework so that folks don't stray outside, but we can keep this use of this data to be in a way both useful but not overly broad and potentially use of the weapon against people's data. So I would support that in the fact perhaps if we agree on sort of this is where we want to go that our homework is to sort of start identifying what these would be from our respective interest areas where we come at this from the panel but specifically again applying the AISP racial center piece to make sure the community members get some input on this and people's experiences all of that. My question given that, well I have a couple questions following on what witchy pointed out and Evan supported. How do we, given that those tables make very clear that those data are in some cases just not there, how do we, how does that impact the scope of the bureau's mission? And hold on, I'm looking back and forth between things. And I guess my other question would be to Robin very broadly, how do you see all of this just impacting, I mean this meaning the uneven presence of the data impacting the scope of the work of the bureau, but you don't have to answer that directly because David has his hand up. Okay. David, I think you're, you hear me? Dude, you're like in an alternate dimension. I think you frozen. Oh dear. I really don't teach you what to do in these situations, you know? I've seen some people have luck turning off their video and sometimes the audio helps a little bit. Yeah, sometimes he just needs to call in on his phone like some of the other people are doing depends on where he is. He looks like he's somewhere where maybe he's somewhere interesting but Monica why don't you have your hand up so go ahead. I do have my hand up and so you know one of the struggles that I have and one of the things that I think I hear other people struggling with is sometimes going back and forth between focusing in on the data, the data, the data and what about the data and where is this available and how is it going to go back and forth and structural stuff around the bureau. And the way I was thinking about it was that the the bureau really in my mind is this place where you know the ability to create or promote best practice in terms of collecting and sharing and analyzing data exists, right? So we know we're going to have to start small and grow but we want to be thinking about it as the place where that work can actually begin to happen and there's like you where the data governance starts to be developed and where the system starts to be developed. Personally, I don't think it's helpful to think about right now the individual pieces of data per se. And so I just wanted to put it out there because that helps me think about these things in a different way. And it may not be what everybody else is but I thought I'd share that. Thank you. Robin, could you jump in now given that I had sort of invoked you? Sure. The witch of Salem. I guess a few thoughts. So I'm still you know that's funny is we're going back and forth. I'm going back and forth my mind between the document y'all wrote last year. Rebecca's Venn diagram of sorts from last session last last week and what I'm hearing now. And so last last week Rebecca presented the the circles of the the bureau and then the analysis was done outside of the bureau. And so I'm still working under that framework because I think that works well and also still gets to the idea of increasing non institutionalized research partners right so that that more people can have access to research data and research dollars. That said, if so if you look at it that way then I think then what then the goal of the bureau is more along the lines of what Monica's saying and maybe the bureau does more governmental things like put up the dashboards like the Department of Health is doing for us now and build those sort of you know those sorts of platforms for good government and transparent government and then the date they also prepare the data sets anonymously you know stripped of identity so that other research so that researchers can you know there are experts who in corrections at Norwich for example who you know would love to look at this data or you know people from other institutions or you know like I said before you know independent scholars. So I do want to put a like just an asterisk. I know that people worked really hard on that list. I think data lists are not always the best because some of that list also comes with a cost that we're not going to be able to at you know we're not going to know what that cost is for you to write the bill. So you may want to broaden for example to take a tons example of the ethnicity categories which is an awesome idea. As I understand do you guys already doing that well what's it going to cost for DPS to pay their vendor to increase that level right to increase those levels and what is the what is the process. So their old system for example Spillman if you wanted to change if the state wanted to change for example to write so when we went to act on the on the licenses for gender you know for non-binary that went into this national orders of tickets and not enough states really wanted it so it kind of got you know filtered down the punch list for the programmers of their national you know database to add that right so it's not just as simple as ordering an agency to add something there's this whole process in which you can probably explain it a lot better on how that's going to happen. I like the idea because you guys are more community based than anything else in state government of research questions being asked by you and then working in conjunction with the Bureau to identify what data already exist to answer those questions. So start with the question and not with the data list and the question will help you decide the data list and as you answer those questions because it'll be horrible if the first question you ask isn't answerable and those prioritize data lists right so starting with the question and then building the data since you guys have the more community input ideas that the Bureau will then help you know collect from the agencies that are actually collecting the data so that you can then answer the questions does that make sense. It does can Rob so let me and I'm not it sounds very grand like I'm trying to jam something up here and I'm not so in other words put those lists aside and kind of concentrate on the notion of really letting the community figure out what questions it wants to ask. Well I mean that's certainly I think what I got out of the toolkit in a lot of ways that that gets to the data governance piece and that we still have to kind of sort out but let's say the community comes back and says we really do want to know are communities of color over police in our state great so what do we need to answer that question well we'll need the shapefiles of the precincts that the departments have and their patrol hours and what are they you know so there's a lot of data that we would need to answer that question none of that's in your list right so if that's the burning question that people really want answered then start with what people want and build the list from there and have that be the charge and then eventually you'll get all these data sets that can be tracked and intertwined so you'll get where you want to go but you'll start with the voice of the people first. Got it thank you David go I'm sorry go ahead Robin I cut you off I didn't realize that. No I'm done that was it. Oh okay David since you seem to be unfrozen now and here you are go ahead. How is this can you hear me Aitan? Yeah yeah great okay let's try this connection obviously is spotting tonight. A couple thoughts just on the on this conversation you know I think as we conceived of this the the bureau is going to be a spotlight and not a compass in other words it's gonna I think our idea for it originally had been that we're going to not prescribe solutions the bureau is not there to prescribe solutions it is there to understand the problem and the problem is this body had already conceived of it or I guess the thing that this body wanted to know when we started talking about this stuff was where in our criminal and juvenile justice systems are there unequal outcomes on the basis of race and which is a very big question of course but that is what we wanted to know the answer to and so we developed those lists last year in that report and of course they're enormous because to learn the answer that question there's a lot of data that needs to be gathered there's a lot of points where that could be happening and then we narrowed it down to those prioritized ones because I think we made the decision the the subcommittee with the input of a panelist made the decision that the sort of like early we wanted to read the things that were most immediately pressing were the first part of how do people get into this system like how's that happening where are the inequalities happening on the intake side of things and so and I don't know if I say all that just to say that I do actually think that the questions have been asked and that the the sort of organizing question has been asked already it's a very big one and it's not one that is actually designed to produce solutions it is simply designed to produce an understanding of where the problems are and then it will ultimately become the mission of all the various entities and state government to try to figure out what those solutions are I don't know if that was helpful at all but just trying to like restate some of what our discussion had been as I recall that because I do actually think we had been working off of some a fundamental question and our idea around this had been actually had been responsive to that fundamental question about where are there unequal outcomes on the basis of race and then the understanding being that with that information we will design we will hopefully be able to figure out solutions but that won't really be the bureau's job that's a subsequent job for legislators groups like this perhaps this group itself prosecutors defense attorneys everybody okay and can you hold off a moment because which he's had his hand up for like a bit longer which he go ahead um so I there's a lot of thoughts in my brain some sorry about just like end up vomiting them but so I think I think there's a disconnect for me between what David was saying and what Monica was saying because like on one end it's sort of like okay so the so they're just going to give us the dashboards we'll figure out we'll figure we'll sort of like figure a lot of the specifics out later and David's saying well the specific thing that we're trying to do is where are the disparities which I also feel generally it's like a very that's a very large scope you know given that you have to prioritize that data list I agree with Robin that it's important to like know what it is that we're like asking and who's asking it and when I look at the x65 wasn't the x65 one of them says that the whole point is to have a public dashboard for public transparency you know and even if that means being able to export for academic purposes or for institutions I just think like you know I think we sort of need to set a path we need to set the bureau on a path that can be develop research questions with communities and figure out what data we need for that it can be research this this like smaller scope to figure out if there's a disparity and why the disparity exists um but I don't necessarily feel like it should be like here bureau figure it out right like I think we need to like set it on a on a path um with obviously with with the community being the guiding force um which I agree with Robin is what the toolkit is saying okay Evan thanks so I'm a little worried that I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna start just endorsing what other people have to say rather than offering too many uh original thoughts but I just wanted to follow up on what Robin was saying and and I think that you know I agree with what she was recommended recommending and um going back to what the mission might be thinking about that specific question you know maybe as part of the mission statement we could we could have that the bureau one of the bureau's responsibilities is to help identify what additional data uh might be needed to they might need to collect because you know I wouldn't want to make it so restrictive that they don't have the authority to collect the data that they need but I also wouldn't want to make it so prescriptive that they start collecting data that they don't think is helpful in answering any of these questions um and another thing that could be helpful with the mission statement is you know providing assistance to the owners of that data who might not have the expertise to collect it and report it out on their own and one of the things that might help the bureau do this is if they're enable if in their enabling legislation they're specifically given some rulemaking authority to answer these types of questions because that rulemaking process although it can be difficult with members of the public to engage in it's at least a a venue for some engagement uh it's not perfect but it it could help okay i just i i hate rulemaking but i get your point that's just my just that's just my dislike for rulemaking maybe i'll put you on that committee oh i'm sorry rebecca did you were you talking i was just saying just put me in the queue for forum with my hand up okay karen goes karen wants to speak and then you so i was just gonna say that i think i actually think both david and robin are right um and and this can be you know when you think about creating a plan um some kind of strategic plan for an organization or a program or process to move forward um you can have an overarching goal and i think that's what that's what was set out in that original report was there's this overarching goal of identifying disparities in the criminal juvenile justice system but part of the challenge with that is how much data do you have to collect and where do you start so it's really important to start taking a look at how do you chunk that out and robin and i have talked about this well since i started with crg and actually i did this work for the judiciary for 10 years is how do you chunk it out so how do you look at the disparities in probation how do you look at the disparities in sentencing how do you look at the disparities in law enforcement responses to whites and people of color how do you look at the disparities in pretrial services and alternative programs what day did you need to find the disparities in how prosecution does their work so there's all these places where you have questions about where the disparities live and we all know the criminal justice system is a continuum and that's constantly where i go back to is you know some of you have heard me talk about the sequential intercept model and we talk about that in terms of how do you intercept people and move them out of the system or give them a better outcome and it's the same kind of process with looking at the data is the data you need for looking at law enforcement are going to be different data than you look at for probation and parole so there's you know all the i look through a lot of the information on a isp and the the resources that they talk about on their site a lot of them were the same thing and it all kind of pointed back to the toolkit and the toolkit specifically said start small so what's the most pressing issue right now for this group to deal with and what data do we need to answer that question you know we can robin and i can go through that data again and break it down and say you know here's what's available and and make a column and say here's what's available here's what could be available if we did certain things and here's what's absolutely not available we can break that down we can tell you where to find the data but it doesn't mean it's going to answer your question so what are the most pressing questions or what's the most may even be easier to start with what's the most pressing part of the criminal justice system or breaking it down by the sequential intercept model so we're looking at law enforcement pretrial services sentencing and probation and community services you know maybe or alternatives to the criminal justice system that may be a way to guide what we do as a framework and then talk about the data under each one of those parts of the criminal justice system because each part is going to need different data i'm done that's always my that's my soapbox Rebecca so i apologize i'm like less than a minute i'm gonna mute myself you guys are all going to hear my gps what are we hearing all right never mind my gps keeps keeps jumping in so oh okay probably here i am all right so um but if i go mute that's what i'm just doing so i'm saving you all so what i i'm back so what i'm hearing and i i and i agree because this is my sense and what i'm hearing sorry about that what i'm hearing from robin and others is that even looking at our priority identified data we wanted to collect that that was still too large of of an undertaking to start off with and um and hearing what everyone is saying and i want to make sure my my thoughts on this i'm more clear on it i see our role is sort of useful that we are collapsing a little bit what i see is two parts which is what is the initial data that we want this entity to collect right what is our top priority if our core priority list is to make or alternatively that's even answer the question that we really want to have right and then there's who is going to how how will the governing body decide what next set of data to collect and do we want to set up a structure and guide you through the whole submission statement right to guide the future decision point but how we set up this on this body how it's set up how they come up with the questions for the answer that's that's right i i wonder if we can think about it that way or whether or not we want to discuss how we want to approach this but we want to give the legislature okay david um i'm not sure well i'm not sure if i'm adding a whole lot here but i'll just keep it brief because of that i think you know one thing i wanted to clarify was that i i i'm certainly not wedded to the specific list that we had and you've listened to this in that report and and from last december and listening to this conversation so it helped me clarify my thinking on that too um i do think that that report sort of pointed us to the broad mission which i'd already talked a little bit about which other people have references as well like what are what's the big picture we're trying to do but i also think and i think what i'm hearing is that it makes sense to allow this bureau is going to have its own governing body it's going to have its own sort of let's let that governing body um i'm not saying this has to be the way it's done but you know what that governing body makes some of these prioritization decisions too and i think to rebecca's point the the mission and perhaps you know what we put in this report can provide some guidance about how those decisions are made perhaps but that in order to have or directed or more effective data gathering along the lines of what which is talking about and which is infinitely more expert than i am on on how to formulate these types of questions but it may be the case that it works better for us to say here's the big scope um these are this is how we envision some of this working some of the steps that it could take and now you the entity uh it is now your responsibility to formulate some of these perhaps tighter questions uh and prioritize a little bit our report from december uh almost behaved as though that the bureau already existed we said all right if we could get the data this is the data we want first um and maybe that's a directive we give in in whatever in this report maybe it's not you know that'll be up to the group um but that was sort of what i think now uh you know we've got the broad idea and i think some of these like clarifying pieces that people are bringing up around we need to allow this bureau to be able to do its work with um slightly more slightly more directed questions and that should be within their purview to do so all that is just to say i i agree with what folks are saying around being wedded to specific data lists is probably not the way to establish this and asking instead the big questions and then allowing the bureau itself some discretion within those big questions is probably a more effective way to have a workable operation moving forward monica and then witchy there's so much going on i'm trying to figure out of what i wanted to say is like added value or just more like you know talk talking and that's what i'm just so and just because i was trying to figure out like you know i was sketching things out and writing things and i and like on my piece of paper here i've got like this broad sort of mission statement that really is you know is and i'm not wedded to this at all but the idea i was thinking of the bureau was that it it's a real job was you know to create or promote or develop you know a structure that allows access to data and information that's centered around racial equity right and that bureau for that purpose and that in order to do that there's a bunch of different things that they need to do and one of the things that that bureau needs to do is you know build relationships with communities develop a data integration governance structure with the right parties that are involved in that follow best practices for sharing and integrating data analysis and reporting and then i've just heard some new ideas develop a strategic plan review and build on the rdapt act 148 report provide assistance to organizations in terms of you know best practices for data collection that's the way i think of it when i think about the scope and the mission of an organization and so that's just where i had been going in my brain if that's a helpful structure for people well it whichy can i interrupt for a moment here thanks monica i that's intriguing because i was doing the same thing and what i was thinking of doing um as an action item for myself was sketching out a mission and submitting it to everybody i can't believe i'm saying i'll send you what i wrote down that would i guess i'm doing this i'm going to use monica's notes and some of our the thoughts that i've gathered from everything that's been said so far and sketch out a mission statement that i'll then disseminate to everyone and i am thinking this partly because one truth that i don't think any of you will be able to dissuade me from after sharing this panel is that if there is a written document in front of people that they can rip apart and reform it goes a hell of a lot better than coming from you know some genesis moment of let there be light that never works so i monica if you would if you would forward that to me what in whatever form i don't know i'm not going to take it no i'm not going to take a picture of my paper i'll type it and send it to you thank you thank you yeah i suddenly realized as i was saying that i really didn't need it and that i was like how make the backtrack on that um but yeah and i'll like write something up that's taking everybody's i mean robin and i mean everybody who's been witchy yevin y'all you y'all and monica and put it together best i can and i'll probably leave somebody out so get mad and edit it you know witchy your turn yeah um i agree that seeing things and writing and then taking it apart and putting it back together is gonna make things go faster uh i really like that lift monica that you just gave um and i think that aligns really well i think with what we're all trying to say which is sort of like have this bureau answer the questions and then that question be formed by a committee of stakeholders um and that committee of stakeholders be it however we want to define it um keeping in mind that we talked a lot about community um and i think i think that's kind of what we should approach this with that the you know this bureau is just in charge of creating the data uh and the data sets and the dashboards um and then we have the committee actually asked questions um we could broaden it so in in addition to the committee there are other agencies that can ask ask questions but you really want some kind of reporting process so things so you know priorities don't get mixed and like who answers to whom um right so uh i think though to keep in mind that the data infrastructure that this bureau is not going to be able to develop an infrastructure that makes sense without the question being asked first so this committee needs to really be this committee of stakeholders needs to be really formed at the same time in order to ask these folks hey design a system that answers these questions and that also leaves a foundation to scale from there which sounds like something that needs to go into the draft legislation when we get to that point i think evan would you agree david would you agree which you just pointed out i i think i think i would yeah if you know setting a baseline or some guiding principles and then allowing the entity itself to expand upon them is not a model that is i mean that's a pretty common model for enabling legislation for various state agencies that are delegated authority by the legislature so uh is probably a more a better way of articulating the sort of rulemaking concept that i was trying to as as cumbersome as rulemaking can be monica uh you know um i think that that might be one avenue you know obviously that it could use the administrative procedures act also has you know provisions for coming out with guidance documents and procedures that don't rise to the level of rules and hopefully this entity would be able to take advantage of all of those tools witchy can i ask you this is so unfair i want you to remember everything you just said and then want you to write it down and send it to me or as much of that as you can because it was really eloquent it was really eloquent can i include some pictures some design drawings sure i what dude whatever gets you through um yeah great um pictures would be great uh whatever gets but you what you were saying about the sequencing the sequencing of the question formation and the question asking and the question answering was really powerful and that would help if i looked at that when i look at what um monica also was thinking up to so i just wanted to throw that out there if you i mean i know i'm giving people like jobs i'm sorry but it's kind of my job and um but that would but it really was wonderful and that's why i'm just like please there's a little bit of a bag there so you know anyway um rebecca you've always got a really good sense for when we're missing something and gonna step in it are you having any like is your spider sense tingling at this moment no but i actually think that what everyone is suggesting is very similar um what i what i what i heard uh what do you say was uh which i'm sorry as uh it's critical to have the formation of this committee of stakeholders identified community members or government whether you want to and have that form right away to be able to identify that that group can identify the questions that need to be answered right yeah what i just in terms of how we're thinking about it i call that the governance board but absolutely a committee right um i think that the initial draft legislation we saw out of out of this past session uh that was proposed it created that committee um and maybe we start thinking of the entity uh i am deliberately calling it an entity and not a bureau because i've expressed my dislike for bureau the bureau before but i'll keep doing it so maybe we just start thinking about the entity um as something bigger including this committee and then the uh the folks who will be pulling all the data together and we're doing the dashboard and getting getting all the data from all the government people um and and i was just going to suggest that in the next few days i'd like to um think and look at some other states guiding um principles for similar governing boards for data and see if i can get some language and send them to you to add to that written product more is more thank you it also occurs to me that we've gone and i just wanted to put this out there in a bit under an hour a long way to answering number three what should be the scope of the bureau's mission and it seems to me listening to everything that's gone on that a lot of that is to figure out what questions are appropriate and how to ask them um not that that would be the mission statement but i'm just saying for us it's already feeling like what we decided we were going to do last week is sort of falling into place to some degree um i will um my sense is number two isn't really gonna i don't know where that's gonna get asked or answered rather i i mean i that's gonna be all y'all data people i mean i i didn't mean that dismissively i meant it more like y'all know what you're like the rocket scientists and i'm the staffing i don't know what's realistic i just have no way of knowing that evan yeah the the only thing i was gonna add on that topic and i'm not i'm not saying kinetic it got it right or got it wrong but um in the in the report my recollection is we identified that kinetic it needed three full-time folks and so you know i i i just go back to wondering how you know how much can we answer these in a very general way and you know identify like the baseline or the starting point for that perhaps based on what kinetic it has done um perhaps based on what you know crg i'm sure they would have some thoughts about this but you know establish it as a baseline and then you know i'm sure the bureau can you know we'll develop its own sense as it starts to implement its mission for what its staffing needs are and and and make the appropriate sales pitch when the time comes okay yeah thank you witchy yeah as far as staffing goes um again it'll depend on the scope but i think as a general starting frame i would say minimum of three positions but four main responsibilities these responsibilities would be someone to be an architect to design the the infrastructure an engineer to build it an analyst to do the dashboarding and reporting and and projects and someone to manage a project those are the four main responsibilities that i would see going into a project like this uh wow i can write that down i'll send it in that email dude you knew where that was going didn't you yeah yeah i'm really it in about five minutes i'm easy to figure out thanks uh great do we want to go further on this now or do we want to wait leave this at this moment and um i'll like get to work i i don't know when uh i don't know when i'll do it as soon as i possibly can i'd like to say tomorrow um i'd like to say tomorrow i'll see how my day goes it may be a little later don't hold me to that um but i guess when i'm asking is do we want to hold this now and then go back to the conversation about um the siting of the bureau of the entity or would a people feel evan's nodding his head like sure okay let's do that seeing no objection um the only thing i would say to start and this is coming from last week was um i think it's important that we note that the end the whole idea of the the independence was really we like independence as a notion but structurally independence is really difficult for an organization like this and that's all i want to put out in as a preamble to that discussion i i i agree with you aton and and that's why i tried to sort of say hope you know hopefully there'd be some consensus that as a baseline if it's housed in another entity or another branch of government um you know there at least be some statement and it's in the enabling legislation that recognizes the importance of independence similar to um the the you know susana's enabling legislation um but you know i think that if whether it's a standalone entity or it's housed someplace else i think is going to be influenced at least in part by practical and fiscal considerations and so you know i i think it would and i don't know that we will be able to fully answer that which is maybe why we answer this in a more general way but i would once we once we figure out what the mission is going to be i would want to know are there any other entities in state government that have similar missions um in terms of or perform similar tasks in terms of data collection even if the subject matter is is different or is there an entity that is well situated to help facilitate the transfer of the necessary data to the bureau which you know might in part answer question number five so those those are my initial thoughts okay um may i have yes robin are you sure i'm just saying like i'm raising my hand so no no you're nobody else has their hand up but you no thank you so um words of caution as you guys are thinking about where this entity i'll use rebecca's words uh live um let's take for example the sentencing commission we used to have a paid executive director he's now judge canan um first budget rescission his salary went and so did he um you know having we the the state statistical analysis center when we were the vermont center for justice research we used to have our own line item in the budget that got cut and cut and cut until dps brought us in under their budget um to kind of continue to fund because the legislature was going to keep cutting that budget over the years so keep in mind who is going to protect the entity um from those from that first budget rescission that's going to happen um and and so who has the kind of ability to advocate institutionally in some way and i don't know what that looks like and it could be something like the board of directors for ccds who is a separate entity um but gets funding from the states along from other entities so my fear is that you set up this thing in the first budget rescission that's the first thing that goes um and that could happen because i've seen it happen over time so that's my only word of caution thank you thanks robin susanna hey i just wanted to um i wanted to say that i think we should if we want a greater degree of independence we should probably not model it after the enabling statute that created my role because that's not in there um it was in the original draft that advocates brought forward and through all of the negotiations and compromises that ended up getting largely cut advocates are still um calling for it there was a bill on the wall last session to make some modifications but i'm i'm not it's not clear to me that those bills will get hearings i just put in the chat the enable the the code where it appears thank you uh oh god i forgot what i was gonna say um i was following evan that about needing that we need to have a mission draft of a mission statement before we even go back to one because it'll tell us what that entity needs to have for qualities in order to make the mission possible for the entity rebecca i'm finding myself fascinated by what you might be thinking as you're driving down the other state uh thanks satan he just saved me from trying to awkwardly jump in i hate that's not seeing you guys um taking robin's point to heart taking uh which is point which is about making sure there's enough infrastructure there also hearing the echo of secretary of state jim condos and of course evan um underlining what we as a panel were unanimous about last year which was the need to have this be independent and susanna i appreciate you pointing out uh and correcting us in terms of looking at the language that enables your directive is not the model uh and that's the way we want that sense of independence i'm back to i'm back to increasingly resting on those recommended entities within the executive uh and and again full disclosure for the new members on the panel um the defender general uh office recommended secretary of state auditor's office and human rights commission 123 to send the order and i'm back to thinking those are the three places again that it's established it'll provide the protection not department of public safety to the dependent side to it right uh and um yeah and and the infrastructure problem with certainly the comparison between secretary of state versus the auditor's office absolutely different sizes and uh scale but again that's a matter of increasing a line uh i know not simple politics but it could theoretically be filled some with it so i i i wonder if i wonder if i would rather agree with that or have no idea what i want to say i worry evan that if we stay vague that we lose the ability to underline the independent nature and centrality that we want to make sure this this data and that they have rebecca i think you just made a really big point and i didn't get it can i think it was because of the technology um can you just repeat your last like last last year uh we came up with that list that was a list of entities that pepper collected from all of us and uh i was i would put forth what the defender general's office suggested on that list which was um factory state's office auditor's office human rights commission 123 to sending order i wonder if the others here on this call listening to the rodman's point um and evan's in terms of how much detail we want to provide and and whether we should go and make a specific recommendation and if so whether there's some consensus you know here okay and conveniently evan has his hand up yeah go ahead evan yeah yeah and i i don't i don't recall hearing about those three suggestions rebecca i i think they're you know potentially good homes the one that i think is the most intriguing is the auditor's office um you know i'd be interested in i'd be interested in knowing if anyone from that office uh thought that this thought you know was supportive of that idea um you know it's also i really appreciate susanna's comment about her the deficiencies in her own enabling legislation because the the language and for circulating it as well that because the language that i had been thinking of was the sentence that says the administration shall not prevent or prohibit the executive director from initiating carrying out or completing the duties of the executive director as set forth in this title and so if that's if that's deficient in some in some way i mean on its face it looks like pretty a pretty clear message um but if that's deficient in some way then i think that we should definitely um keep keep those deficiencies in mind in case the legislature also thinks that that might be good language to include uh you know just just so we have a better sense for what the problems are why it's insufficient and then we can you know be prepared to answer those questions if if we get them in the endless hearings that we'll have yes david uh two things one um i would aton i i agree with you that perhaps before making a final decision on this how we approach this it might make sense to have a mission in place that or at least a little bit more fleshed out that being said i do think that we all have a sort of general understanding of what we're hoping to this this body will accomplish here um and with respect to the placement i i fall into the camp of being pretty agnostic as to where specifically it ends up i think it is a reality of politics that in any position any elected position may ultimately be occupied by somebody who is hostile to the mission of this bureau whether that's the secretary of state whether that's the auditor whether that's the governor we don't know who's going to win those offices down the road someday and it may be any one of those could be occupied by somebody who'd rather not see this bureau carry out its its efforts um i think that's just a reality so i would agree that the key here is to have legislation that um to the maximal extent possible really protects the bureau from uh interference from a elected official ultimately this is going to be under somebody's auspices right that i think that's just how government works whether it's five layers below the governor or immediately under the auditor some elected official is going to have a purview over this and it needs to be protected the legislation needs to be written in a way that gives a high degree of protection to the mission um and i do think that that is achievable um and i think there are samples out there so that's where i would really place the effort here uh and place the emphasis here is how do you write legislation that protects the bureau from a potentially hostile elected official which again i have to emphasize could be any one of these offices um and i don't have that you know language at at the forefront of my mind but but things along the lines of what Evan was saying and along and i would i appreciate susana's um words as well in terms of the history which i hadn't been fully aware of and and i think it would be helpful to to look at those to look towards those uh examples uh that as things that we can draw from robin's point about the rescission i think is very well taken and ultimately shows that the legislature is going to be the itself is going to be the final protector of this and and we will have to those of us who care about these issues will have to continue to advocate in the future as tough budgetary decisions come come into play okay yeah i have to admit personally i mean we've been talking about where this goes for the better part of a year and you know to protect it and i'm i'm i mean people are still arguing rovey wade on the federal level i mean i i just am sort of like there's a zero sum game here where you do the best you can do and that's about it um you just can't take in every exigency in the future and i which depresses me because i'm a control freak um any other comments on this because what i was hearing was and i don't remember who said it at the moment but that it would be helpful to talk about the mission and then go back to this who said that i didn't mean that as accusatorily as that came out i thought you said it eight times but i did i say it oh dear god now i'm like got other problems um if everyone agrees with that then i i'm not trying to like get out of anything but it looks like this is a natural stopping point for tonight and that i've got some work to do after um monica and which he submits some sentences to me and then i need to get those into some you know i'm not even talking about pages obviously i'm talking about a few paragraphs here um but good paragraphs and and get them back out to everybody so there's something to work on next monday i think that makes a lot of sense and and just as a heads up i unfortunately am not going to be able to attend next monday but aton if if you send that out i i'll do my absolute best to review it and get you any comments this week to the degree that that would be helpful i and i'm gonna do everything i can to write it and get it out to you haven't thank you rebecca do you have any thoughts on this i i you're just uncharacteristically quiet because you're driving i feel a little lost oh my god she really isn't there i always count on her for picking out the really like the thing i miss rebecca please oh well all right ah does anyone have anything else then that they would like to raise tonight before three of us write some stuff down and one of us really write some stuff down and gets it back out to you oh rebecca's trying to talk oh oh she just left oh i hope i didn't annoy her um damn anyway all right if does anyone have anything else they'd like to raise no yes no then i'm gonna close the meeting at 7 21 thank you all as always for your wonderful thinking and uh we will go on next week and as i say i will do my best when i receive stuff to fashion something that we can you know really dig into and pull apart and edit all right great good night everybody thank you good night thank you good night everybody hi