 Let's call it's order. Welcome to the first meeting of what I've been calling the Act 65 Working Group of the ARDAP. We I we're gonna this is another one of those it's we're gonna work it out. It's it's gonna be a little rocky and we unfortunately here do not have the wonderful monitor that we had in White River Junction that felt so Star Trek. So we're gonna be a little less polished. I let's start with introductions. It should be relatively simple. There aren't that many of us tonight. Susana can we start with you. Hello. I want to start with Susana Davis racial equity director for the state. Thank you. Monica. Hi everyone I'm Monica Weber. I'm the Department of Corrections designate to the ARDAP panel. Rebecca. Hello everyone from New Hampshire near Portsmouth Rebecca Turner for the Office of the Defender General. Sheila Sheila if you can. Hey everybody Sheila Linton she her pronouns community at Large Root Social Justice Center. Great thanks. 802-505-9147 which I think is Robin. It is not that everyone in the world knows my home phone number but yes it is Robin. Oh I'm sorry. No no no no no no at all that was not at you that was it occurred to me that I just appear as this phone number that now everyone knows in all of these meetings but yes it's me from crime research. Hello everybody. Great and then 802-3 I don't know it keeps moving 342-2468. Yeah just Chris Laura from Crime Research Group joining you from O'Hare International Airport. Oh aren't you lucky oh scare. Yeah that's it. Great. Okay Karen. Hi everyone Karen Gannett from Crime Research Crime Research Group. Ian. Ian Morris I'm using some more systems. Great. Curtis. Curtis Reed. Can you shut your. All right. Curtis Reed Executive Director of Remark Partnership for Fairness University. Jessica. Hi everyone Jessica Brown from Mount Law School. David. Hi everybody. David Chair Assistant Attorney General representing the AG's office. Great. I'm Eitan Nassred and Longo. He, him, pronouns. I'm the chair of the panel. As far as announcements go I sort of followed what we did last summer and if you remember for the working group which last summer was a subcommittee I don't know if that's an advancement or not. I did not make agenda for every week. I didn't do it tonight I just felt like if we could be a little less formal we might benefit from that. I do have stuff in my head and I thought we could go from there. I will put that in front of you. What I was hoping was we could start off with a discussion of the links to the toolkit for centering racial diversity in data integration processes. Get some thoughts down on that. You may have them you may not you may need more time. Rebecca brought that to my attention and I'm grateful to her. I feel it felt very much like when Chief Stevens brought his document if you recall for our report in 2019 to us and that really gave us a lot of ways to not reinvent the wheel and I feel like this does as well. So I thought it would be worth our taking a look at it since we really don't have time to reinvent wheels and get some feedback from folks. Then I want to turn it over to Rebecca because she's had some really good thoughts about it. With luck I will be able to share my screen which will be part of what Rebecca's doing. I'm going to share my screen. I know that seems really boring to you all I've never done this so I'm a little apprehensive. And then we do need to revisit and will likely have to revisit many times during the course of the summer the idea of the placement of this bureau. So those are the three things I really want to get done. I feel like that's a great start and after that next week we'll be ready to certainly meet with the whole panel. Any objections any comments. Okay seeing none. Hold forth on the document from the AISP the oh God I can't remember. It's a really good acronym. Rebecca what does it stand for I can't. Is it actionable intelligence or policy I think. Yes. Yeah do you have it on the screen let me pull it up on the screen or on my I'm going to pull it up here on my screen. I don't have it up on the screen now. No no I didn't mean I'm sorry I didn't mean for you to share that. Have you had a chance to take a look at it yet. I don't think I don't think so is is there a way you can share it or email or something with us right now. Yes. I sent out an email about it last week. I can I will look for it and send it again. And in the meantime I'm going to see if I can put this in the chat a link. It's the link that that Aton sent out yesterday. I just want to get a sense on on this call tonight is who has had a chance to to take a look at it. Karen David Aton the telephone numbers we can't see your hands. Sir Robin. I have Robin this is Robin I read it before. Yep got it got it Sheila. No no no problem I'm just trying to get a sense of where people are. This is Jessica I have not had a chance to look at it. Okay. And the other two on the I can't see. Her just has them in it either. Okay so like maybe it might be less than half have taken a look at it. Let me let me show you why I share this with Aton and thought that it was worth bringing to our subcommittee level discussion. We know we heard we heard Moe at last month's start-up we've been doing this enough. We've heard heard from from our our our experts here in Vermont on this stuff. What what I was looking for I have been trying to find on my own trying to sort of go down a bunch of different rabbit holes. We're toolkit type of things where the the whole project of data aggregation at the government level whether or not it was specifically involving the same data we're trying to handle or other bits where that had been done with a racial equity centered lens right so that we were it was it was so we know that Connecticut just recently passed legislation right there's Colorado I've learned that you know Oregon has lots of states have dashboards sharing sort of crime and juvenile court related data. What I was trying to find was something much more specific and that is approaching the whole build-up the design with this racial equities lens. Right. Not inheriting sort of what's already being necessary I mean with with the sensitivity of why that was important for us recognizing that that we have the luxury of starting from scratch that the legislature has tasked us specifically not another panel but with our specific focus area right to to provide some ideas. And so I wondered how that looked different than what could be done without a racial equities lens. Right. And so this was something I couldn't find. I mean this was a pretty and I hope others on the call will share other resources but this was the only thing I could find. Certainly there are lots of groups out there like Campaign Zero like from the from the organizational nonprofit criminal reform movement from the community side of outside of government. There is a lot of interesting data aggregation going on collecting publicly available data. Right. Use of force police violence how many people have been killed similar to what the Washington post has been collecting for instance. Right. There is there is there is of course the dashboard stuff that we see in other various governments. But again with this like thinking about it and so that's where I thought this toolkit while not specifically focused on criminal juvenile justice data aggregation it was an approach that we could implement here and at least see a way that keeps us centered and not inadvertently turn the racial equities focus to too late in the end end point or just simply focused on membership at whatever part of the governing body. Right. And not thinking how that's actually every step of the way. It sort of blew my mind to read about it and how this could be done. But I'm curious what others who did get a chance to read it and who do this work or just I'm curious what others thought about it. Frankly I was refreshed. It just felt it felt like it was the right attitude. It felt like it was the right focus. And I think part of why I was refreshed and renewed was back to the same metaphor. Oh God we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Here are people whose rhetoric looks extraordinarily trustworthy that we can look at and rely upon in fact we've done the research. Well I'll say something. I thought it was a great synopsis of all the work that goes into. I don't think it's anything it's interesting. I don't think it's what they did was took all the pieces that we've been talking about and put it in one document where we can follow the roadmap. And I thought they did a really really good job at putting that together and showing the complexities and all the pieces that fit together to do just that. Others we're going to revisit this. Yeah I apologize for not having a chance to look at it before this meeting. I did open it up and you know it looks really like it's it's definitely something I want to spend more time looking at. And I again I haven't had time to fully absorb the information so I can't really comment on it. I get it. I and I should I don't mean to be shaming people. I was oh no I don't feel shamed. I just I just wanted to acknowledge it looks like a good piece of information that I do want to look at. I just haven't had a chance to yet. Yeah ditto to those comments. I haven't gotten a chance to look through it looks very interesting to me. And from what I have looked at just skimming through it a lot and just from the comments that were made from Rebecca I really like your framing around this is what I think I heard was sometimes you know sometimes there are systems that need to be dismantled and rebuilt sometimes there are systems that need to be reformed sometimes you just need to really throw the shit out and start all over and I think we're a little bit more on the spectrum of throwing some stuff out and starting over with a strong base from what we've already currently done and maybe with some tools like these that are coming to our awareness to be able to acknowledge that if we are going to really address what we've been talking about is these white supremacy structures and systems and create that racial justice lens that we're talking about then we may have to start from a different level of the house. And so I'm really appreciative of this and really interested and it takes me a long time to read and so I'm wondering how thoroughly I'll be able to go through it without spending an enormous amount of time on it but I like the concept and the framework doing things differently not just trying to fit what I think I heard in Rebecca please correct me if I'm wrong but I think what I heard was trying to fit a square into a circle and like sometimes we try to just what I feel like we might be doing or a piece of what we've been doing is trying to figure out how to do a racial analysis racial equity analysis within the current systems of structures that exist rather than acknowledging that those systems may be the systems of structures that created help to create and uphold the systems in which we're trying to dismantle. So again I just feel like this is great and I think it's an opportunity for us to be able to do something different. Itan I wonder if it would be helpful for just five minutes to a rough sketch of the of sort of a little bit of a slightly deeper dive of what are the of the underlying principles and because that just does segue into sort of because I like what Karen what you said that it was familiar right that it was familiar in the sense of all the stuff we've been talking about over the many months that we've been conceptualizing this in bits and pieces how the how the discussion went last session in terms of where what was critical where the push and pull were what were the concerns all of this like that it pulls all of these thoughts together. And so I thought with that I was hoping to just outline because what I had not and Monica this this also hit me you've been really good about sort of having us be careful with our terminology in terms of data collection right data access like this this really set out a sense of and it was Wickey who I don't think is here with us tonight who talked about how. Not yet. Yeah he talked about how data quantitative data standing alone can't be expected to tell the story right that we need qualitative stories to explain it. And also what hit me home that we haven't really stressed much yet was this central need to make sure we protect the people whose data this is about. Right. Like and again I know that's come up in various ways. Judge Gerrison has brought it up in terms of you know privacy what's confidential DCF. Like if this has come up I think CRG has talked about the Vermont access laws right in public and private. This really brings it though centering it to let's remember who we're talking about specifically we're talking about Black and Brown and other historically marginalized communities whose data these are the people whose lives are being captured. How are we using that data responsibly to make sure we don't further cause harm right. So it was interesting to sort of bring back again like the full circle of identifying the questions that we want answered versus the sort of open ended for me a nightmare situation would be building essentially a big data government surveillance tool right. So how to make sure we're not aggregating data that can be used to further harm the very people we're trying to improve their lives and also prevent further inequities right. So I thought it was a great summary of it. But again the data the data life cycle that they talk about in the introduction in the I'm looking at page 4 you know there was the planning stage which I think really is us right now. It's a little bit daunting to read the three pages they summarize of how much is involved in the planning. We're trying to shove some version of it by November 1 for the legislature. But that's that was a useful perspective. Then there's there's thinking about data collection data access. Then there is the algorithms and statistical tools used to handle once you get all the data. Then there's the actual data analysis and then there is the reporting and dissemination of that analysis. And so it was an interesting feedback move all the way of course what's then done upon dissemination. And the point there was not just dissemination to policymakers legislators but to the community that there was this circle of constant trust building built in of ways for people with lived experience people from historically marginalized communities where they can provide input so that there is transparency and accountability but also trust that this won't be used against them and actually improve people's lives. And I thought that's where these steps of of the racial equities lens through each of those data the life cycle of data was interesting and useful. We need to dig deeper to see how they suggest doing that. So I think that's I'll stop with that Eitan. I thought there's one to share thoughts. Sure. So one of the you got it. Okay. So one of the things I think about a lot around data collection is who's data and are we from the outside collecting data for the sake of our own intellectual curiosity and to what extent does community level data that's collected by community members you know how do we validate that level of data collection and analysis so it's not just this committee or some government entity or nonprofit entity that sees as an opportunity to collect data from the people but rather you know how do we encourage our communities to collect analyze and share data that they generate on their own. Others. Hey Tom this is Robin can I address Curtis's second. Please do. Thank you and I'm sorry I'm on an actual phone so I can't raise my hand properly. When I so to Curtis's point about community members and community organizations I will tell you that in my years of advising community organizations about how to collect data they need money to do it they need technical assistance they need a streamlined process because data collection isn't their you know main goal their service providers for the most part is what I would the people that I've helped but this government needs to help them with resources to be able to be some of those frontline collectors so if you take for example the network for domestic and sexual violence they there's a open source case management program for their grant reporting that you know was very helpful in being able to get everyone to report their grants but now we also have that data from them about how many victims they serve etc etc so capturing a portion of the population that may not ever see government you know interaction because they're not reporting to the police likewise for organizations that work with marginalized communities you want to encourage with funding to have people be able to collect that data because they're seeing people who will not interact or show up in the data on the government side and their stories are different and their stories need to have the same weight as those who interact with the government and that's my soapbox so the I'm going to drill further down into my question which is who gets to determine what questions are asked the current model is that someone exterior to a community decides what questions they want to ask and then they try to figure out a way you know what's the best way to collect this data that has been determined by another party so how do we communities themselves to generate the questions that are important to those communities and then equip them with the tools and the resources and infrastructure to actually go about doing that because right now communities are responding to questions that are generated by a second party. Hey Ton I have a thought. I was muted sorry Rebecca I called. Yeah go ahead. No it's I mean Curtis you're absolutely right the outsider status right. Mo talked about we've talked about we've struggled with which legislature wanted to turn our DAP into the effective governing body right above this of this entity. I think I think an important consideration I think for us to consider to think about but I think the answer is there is get these community members these people with lived experiences the advocates for people who who have these experiences get them to elevate them to be core stakeholders make them bring them to the the table in the in the governing body build in some organizational structures in terms of how we suggest how this governing body develops the questions that need to be asked to then task it out and build into that some requirement that there be additional outreach right to the communities because we can't expect people to come find right. We the governing body should be a built up of memberships of those key communities and voices and then have a requirement to additionally go out and search and find ways to get the input. Monica. Thanks Eitan and I don't think I'm specifically responding to Curtis's question although I think that some of the work that we have to do needs to keep all of that in mind. But I was looking I'm trying to skim the toolkit really fast I will read it but I'm skimming it while we're on the call. And and you know I really like these pages the positive practice versus problematic practice in each of these areas and it and it occurred to me one thing I would do is sort of look at those practices and also sort of map them against the the work that we have to do right. So in terms of like to how and to what extent the Bureau should be staffed and the scope of the Bureau's mission and then polling the promising practices from this toolkit and making sure we avoid the problematic practices could be a way for us to sort of could help us guide answering the questions that are posed in Act 65 so that we know that we're not sort of running afoul of what AISP has done. That was just an idea I'm thinking about but I need to sort of play with it a little bit more because I think it could help sort of us walk us through some steps in each one of these areas that we need to figure out. It's my unformed thought of the moment. Just to quickly piggyback on Monica's point because I am doing the same thing she's doing which is skimming the toolkit and I think I'm on page 25 and there is a page with the exact type of chart that she's talking about with positive practices and problematic practices and one of the positive practices is for example open data that have been identified as valuable through engagement with individuals represented within the data. So I do think that this can be a really good source of information and guidance for all the concerns that we are raising right now. Thank you. I just want to also point out and this sort of came up at our last meeting too a lot it feels like there's a lot of work we have done. We did say there should be a governing body made up of community members that should be advising this thing. That was in the report that we submitted in December of last year. That was a big part of that report. Likewise there was a lot of data in there that we were looking at that I mean you remember we spent a huge amount of time looking at what data did we feel was neat were needed what existed. I mean CRG did Yeoman's work in figuring out what was where. That data is not generated by the community but I don't think that that means it's not useful. It's useful in a particular way but not universally useful. But I just wanted to point out there's a lot we did do it's it's not like the governing body has and I'm also not entirely certain and I think this may be an open discussion how much more clear does that need to be made to this sounds so snitty. How much clearer does that need to be made to the legislature. We said a governing I mean do we have to make up the governing body. I believe they want us to make up they want us to answer or suggest a lot of answers to their questions. Right. Who's on the governing body. Where are the beers should be housed. They they yes. Does that seem like maybe what we want to have happen. No but that's what they told us to do. You know there it is my thanks. It is it is what they asked us to do. For those of you guys who have that toolkit page 34 if you keep working your way down through it is the beginning section on Toolkit Activity 1 who should be at the table. Now this process of identifying who should be at the table. Let's let's not worry about the timeline or budget. We don't need to dwell on those pressure points already. I'm they're not I'm not minimizing though all of those excellent points on how how you build in accessibility and openness for a diverse set of members. So I don't mean to do that. But if you go to 36 for purposes of sort of answering that question or thinking about how to how we can go about answering it they provide some suggestions on how to identify your stakeholders. Who who are core stakeholders. And I thought it was interesting how they how they talk about it there. Basically it's it's those who could who you need and who would seriously impede the whole project. Right. Who needs to be at the table. So I think we know like the government stakeholders who's who has the data right. And and and basically almost all the represent represented organizations here in our depth government agencies departments. It's the others and we talk about community members. We've talked about people who lived experiences being in here. We've talked about technical experts right. Technical experts expanded upon here beyond just data technology like DDI research CRG you guys right are are are part of of this sort of others who can facilitate and make better UVM. We've identified legal we haven't really thought about who provides the legal expertise. We sort of inferred. I mean so do we want basically it's interesting to think about who should be on and what do they bring to the table and and what so not just identifying sort of your plays but what skills what expertise do we want to make sure we have as well. I thought that was interesting helpful. Rebecca do you want me to attempt to put up the the drawing if others if others are willing to to keep listening although I really hate I mean I want people to jump in. But because I have had sort of the advantage of finding this and reading this and thinking about this ahead. I want to I want to share yeah I think maybe Tonne like I sort of I I sketched out from you remember coach sketched out something when he talked about this that legislature terms of thinking about how this could be designed and where we have sort of talked about it. I started and then how I read this toolkit and then looking further until others have been doing this. Iowa was an example in this at this AISP website on racial equities that had recently tried to implement something like this. So I've been trying to sort of pull things together to do a diagram and that's what A-Ton's think talking about I think yeah I'm happy to to sort of to walk through with people. I don't think it's anything radical. I think you guys will think it's pretty familiar. Sort of had again grounding us with some way to conceptualize moving forward and maybe thinking about how we want to break down steps and dive deeper into the details. But A-Ton do you have. I do I'm doing the best I can which of course means nothing. I I clicked that little upright arrow next to leave and I've got the purple circle of death going around in a circle. And it doesn't seem to be sharing anything. I don't want to see if I can share but I'm not seeing how I can share from here. I can share actually. You can share. I don't know let me see. That's more than I can do. All right let me let me let me see if I can pull this up. God forbid Microsoft should make something easy to use. Share content. David do you have a sense of who who maybe I am not I don't have sharing ability. Annoyingly sometimes. Oh I think I've got it. I think I've got a sharing ability. I had like 50 plus screens up. OK so so this was again I wish we could have a placeholder what we want to call it. But remember there was this thinking of there would be a director an executive director and two staff people I think. Data experts. So that is conceptualized here in the center circle. I forget someone named at the Bureau. That sounds very familiar. It sounds very abstracted. Yeah that's right I was like it's a statue but whatever. We can see the name. But I think fear being part of hearing them that they that he threw it in it's a placeholder. I didn't get the sense maybe others would disagree but that that was locked in. So that's that's that. But instead of it being I mean in a way it's the hub right. But it takes its direction from the governing board. So it's not the one deciding which questions to ask. It's not the ones asking which government agencies to ask. Right. This is coming from what the governing board decides to do is the question to be asked and then who should be on the governing board was that separate question we were sort of diving into. What I did here was separate. We've only talked about a single governing board and I know there have also been concerns both in the legislature how like why just build this for criminal criminal justice and race cap the same issue and and need is being identified in health and education like and Evans brought this up like whatever we design we should do something to scale up. Here is an example of a scale up. You set up a governing board based on the subject area that you're trying to be aggregating data on. So let's not give short shrift a very different the two systems right. We talk about how we still never spend enough time on the juvenile justice side of the house right. It's sort of a short shrift but that's an easy fix. We elevate it. There are different stakeholders overlapping but specific needs right. So why not have a separate governing board related to juvenile justice. Why not have a separate separate governing board for the criminal justice folks. Again then. Rebecca could you email that to Robin because she's on the phone and can't see this. Oh Jude. Yes. I'm sorry. Hey Tom do you still have that copy that you can send her so I can keep talking. I can. I. Yes. And you can send it to us on this call. Thanks. Thanks. And then there's there's this circle which you guys can see. And not everyone. Sorry Robin. The where it's including smaller circles of all of the agencies departments which would be the data holders who have the data that would need to be provided for to be collected to be then analyzed and then recorded out. And so that instead of you know I know we've seen mappings of it where we pull them all out right but let's like group that group as like the place where the data is coming from. And in a way even though there's one arrow going towards back to the division because they're sending out the data in a way that's where these two groups will be like interacting with each other to make sure that the data exchange the sharing satisfies legal requirements and also the needs of the actual data that we want to collect right. So there's that back and forth there. Then we talked about who's doing the analysis. The who's doing the applying the algorithms right. Who's who's going to actually put all the stuff together and get the quantitative. I guess there that's a lot of different parts. But that's where I started thinking of where the role of CRG UVM others right who we can bring in to to to sort of again be the be the experts to to do it. There is sort of then some transparency built in maybe checks and balances right like how many people how many different people how many different entities within that separate outside analytical circle something where whatever is decided is appropriate there satisfies against where this overarching need for transparency accountability and looping back confirming that the core principles of what's guiding all of this are being met. And so that's that was a start. It's it's it's not it's just it's just so I don't know what others think alternatives. I'd like that it's scalable. I'm going to stop that. Oh OK. So we can see each other or do you want me to keep this up. It's up to you or the board or whoever we are. The work we're the working group right. It's not working right. We're the working group. I you know Rebecca I think that that like structure make make sense. I think one of the fundamental questions that still is an answer then maybe that's where we need to you know we obviously need to have a question is where does that division as you as you named it live. And on one hand the way it's kind of set up it's almost like it's its own you know organization unto itself with different sort of advisory panels. But I don't know if you if you thought anymore about that or because I think that is one of the things we have to to answer in our in our report. Right. No and you know to me that's like incorporating pepper collecting all of our thoughts is pepper on this call I thought I saw him briefly. I saw his face there. That's the Secretary of State's auditors H.C. or ideas and others independent another just independent entity. And then of course Susanna in within your office was also a suggestion. I have thought a lot about I don't know what where others are on this question. I think fundamentally they let's forget where within government we should rest on settle on do we want government or do we do want something within government or outside. If it's within government where should it be. Should it be some way executive branch if it's government but then. So I think that part of the one thing that may help us and I think your chart visualized that is you know the separation between the actual aggregation and collecting of the data. Although I understand sort of from you know other conversations that we still need to be pretty mindful about that in terms of how it's done and the analysis piece and who has access to the data and analyzing it. And I feel like that's something interesting that we should continue to explore because I think it could help us land a little bit more easily on where a division that aggregates what's going to be primarily in this case government data is housed. Government's going to have to be involved in some way. So what's the what's the best way for us to to do that. I remember there was a time about eight weeks ago where I was sort of accessing my inner Rosa Luxembourg and I was like smash the state. This should be completely outside of it and you know go anarchy and I was having a really great moment and then I thought but I worked for the government and I had a moment of and who's going to sign the requisition for a computer. And who is going to tell the director of the bureau. Oh thank you for letting me know you need the next two weeks off and that that's covered under vacation for you and you get paid or there are suddenly all these like fundamental basic employment questions that I'm going to be honest. I don't want to answer. I don't want to answer. That's just me. I'm not speaking as the chair. I'm speaking as Aiton. I don't want to answer those. That's the beauty of putting it somewhere within state government where it feels at least relatively protected because I don't know how to figure that stuff out. I have requisitioning a computer. I don't know. I got his staples. Fill out a form and give it to your IT manager. Of what. I mean yeah right. I mean you know and there's just something I think that that has to be balanced here is I mean it's funny I'm on level but on a real level it's time it's labor and the whole idea of making it diffuse though there are moments when I just want to like get a small nuclear weapon and bring it to my appeal here. I shouldn't be admitting that. But the reality is that all that diffuseness actually facilitates when it's working well acquisitioning a computer making sure there are data sharing agreements all of that stuff is already taken care of. And so I'm just throwing that out there too that it's something to bear in mind I think. Something that that has been shared with me is also having strong arm ability to have the data collection happen right. That that that we make sure that that whoever is charged with running that division is someone who can eventually order or require that these various government departments and agencies to comply right. We talked about building into consequences for individual departments and agencies if they don't don't provide the data and that's always possible for sure. But I too like I am I am I'm for what it's worth and I'm curious to hear what others think more and more settled that whatever and whoever is a new government entity or not that it should be within state government and within the executive branch. One more thought before I want to hear I want to hear others but I had a random encounter with the secretary of state Jim Condos at the dump yesterday. We were at the garbage in Montpelier and I asked him if he was aware that we had been recommending the secretary of state as a possible placeholder place for this and he had he had a few immediate thoughts reactions. A. The conception of what work is involved how much data aggregation necessarily requires that the entity has significant infrastructure. And he also said he neither committed or rejected the idea right that was not I mean this is the point. He also put on my radar two people that we should consider talking with Tanya. Oh I forgot her name from head of archives and then the deputy and I'm forgetting his name. But also put on my radar I didn't realize that the legislature had tasked the secretary of state to start collecting new data on a new law that passed the session related to BIPOC business owners. So they are right now trying to design a similar new data collection point on how to do this. So I thought oh gosh here we have I think we're all siloed in our projects a potential piece for some work. OK so total out of the box thinking here. There are a couple of sort of equity investment firms. I think we could move this idea into the private sector and you know getting a couple of Vermont equity firms that would underwrite all of this over and make the pitch that it happens for over a period of 15 years that they underwrite the cost of this massive data infrastructure. So anyway that's my my two cents doesn't need to be government. But if you go outside of government where they need big bucks and some of Vermont's equity management firms can do this with you know it'd be a drop in the bucket in terms of their their net worth. You get names for us. Sure. I'll send you some names. But yes I would. I'm just trying to. Sorry. Hello everyone. My name is Wachey. I from just after having read the report that you sent us it's on I just thinking about like risks right and I think wherever we decide to put it there are risks. So I just want to think about what is the risk of putting it of putting this in the hands of a private firm. And I'm automatically thinking it's like we are giving individual data for a private firm to aggregate for us. And I think that's I think about you know what the private industry has done for with data in our individual data. Right. I think about Cambridge Analytica. That is a lot bigger scale right. It's not an equity firm. It's like a different it's a different you know thing. But just really thinking about what it means to for us as a government group to hand over our citizen data over to the private industry. Right. And you know the the the model assumes that there's a that the structure is such that it will it opens this up for the exploitation of data. But if this entity is is governed by community members and managed by community members there's a much less chance of of the kind of nefarious activities to go on. It's like it's it's a I don't say pie in the sky idea but it is one way to pull this out of the politicization of data what is in the hands of government. You know we should throw out there on the table as well as as that we've talked about academic institutions as well. I think there's also I think people have talked about CRG. And I think fundamentally we want to make sure there is trust. I appreciate the the highlighting critically of the privacy interest being at the forefront and how we can make sure that the data will be used responsibly and protectively right narrowly not be sold not be lost not be compromised. Again it was it was conversation that Jim kind of was brought up reminding me about how they had to scramble after the DMV mixed up of two weeks worth of data sharing relating to non-citizen information how they had to scramble back and crawl in. And it was just again a useful reminder of how the Secretary of State has already I mean they're it's built into their system in terms of thinking about how to protect data practices they've just gone through. I'm not trying to sell them and what I'm actually thinking is I'd love to find out who we can talk to. The people there to learn from them and from they might have names organizations ideas on what we should be thinking about in terms of specifically what we're thinking about to steer us away from private or to consider it right. Who do they use or private academia or government. Our depth we've all talked about how important independence is transparency accountability. For me this this gap isn't so wide if we turn and start this within government state government because there doesn't seem to be an obvious alternative right now in terms of having that level of trust. I'm increasingly and you know I'm increasingly going towards thinking of creating a new entity with an executive that would just be this new data body. But again I'm open. Wickey do you have any suggestions or ideas in terms of or others you know in terms of privacy protections governance and considerations. Like what what do you think about. I mean I know there are individual laws in Vermont what's public what's private but are there other resources that we can look at to quickly get our heads around all the various things we should be thinking about from our perspective vantage point coming at this. I think in in in my own opinion I have sort of several responses to that. I think one privacy privacy laws and data governance that's like God that's a can of worms and it's different for every industry. I would I am not an expert in government operations. I've done data governance in health care but not in government operations so I can't speak on that. But I'm sure that we can bring in an expert to talk about that a little bit. My my other response to this is when I've seen successful sort of data analytics houses I've seen them embedded within the IT department specifically because when we talk about data we we have to talk a lot about availability of technological resources we need to talk about us we need to talk about what's the word I'm looking for here conformance like because we're not going to be the only people that are going to be asking for data so we need a central place in the government where we can be able to pose like oh they've already laid out this foundation so we can build this on top of it and we need that type of that that specific type of governance we need to be able to have we can't be siloed or we're going to spend years and years and years building things that we never end up using. I also I also do really think about really housing this in a place where it's not government it's the people that are that it's supposed to be changing that it's not being housed under under them right like we can't we can't be like hey you know I'm just just this is out of my brain police department we need you to be accountable here's data and like govern the data so you can be accountable because then all of a sudden it's a oh let me tailor that data so it's showing that we're accountable so by putting it in a department like IT or something like that where it's apart from like a specific place like a specific you know like instead of the Secretary of State or something you allow for that accountability to be a little more transparent and checks and balances. And Wichee I know you joined us fairly recently I just wanted to let you know and I'm not sure I think everybody else knows that Robin who's on the phone here with us now is really an expert in Vermont criminal justice data. We have our hands on a lot of data in the state so we really and we have contracts with the state so just just so you know that there there are people here that have a handle on that data. And as this is Robin I'll say I totally agreed with everything that Wichee said and would add also and Etan did send me the diagram. I would in the circle that actually you have CRG and UVM I would add others that we don't know who they are yet and I just want to point out that research dollars and access to data is as competitive and is tainted by the same way to privacy structures that exist right. So UVM and I we can compete UVM has more resources so they can do you know some competitions better for research dollars. We for example just did our privacy certificates with the state the attachment D which is this horrible thing that we have to sign and have all our policies as a burden for a small organization. But if this is housed is what you suggest in AD what would be ADS CIT then they can release these de-identified data sets and independent scholars scholars of colors scholars that you know we don't know who they are here in Vermont can access that data without those burdens of the privacy and the confidentiality that we all have to go through. So I just want to point that out that the analysis should also be centered in trying to encourage more voices and more scholars and particularly scholars of color to engage in the analysis and make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Robin I know how much you hate repeating yourself. Yes. But I'm going to say through this summer and fall I think you should probably remind us of what you've just said because it seems to me that that is the sort of thing that needs to go into draft legislation and we are charged with that. Well that's my suggestion I don't know if you all agree with that but that's just my suggestion. No. But you should keep repeating it because we should keep thinking about that. That's important. I mean if we're taking what Curtis said seriously there are analysts who are not government actors surprisingly. I think that it is it's absolutely critical we think about how ADS fits in to this design. I will share that I am loath to default to ADS as the housing body for again what's called their the division. And I say that because of what a radical redoing we are of this right we are not needing someone and again I'm not saying that ADS shouldn't be involved in this. I think they're a core stakeholder right. They're a stakeholder. They're just they're critical to because they could. We need them but should they be the centralized entity the body do they come at it structurally organizationally in the same way that we want and envision the organization of this division right. It's so much bigger than the technical how-to's and I mean that with all due respect of how complicated that is right and how much it is to to protect and aggregate and ensure that the privacy protections. I don't minimize that. I do recognize that historically they are not area expertise in law in the criminal or juvenile court systems. They're not area expertise in racial justice issues generally racial inequities issues generally right. Representing the interests of people from historically marginalized communities they do work for state government. It's it would be a thumb on the scale in a way that already I think is working within the old ways of doing data that I don't think sends the right the right message. If if if someone has a way or ideas of how to kind of address my those kinds of concerns and working and building a more central role of ADS I welcome and I'm not I'm not I'm not shutting that out as a possibility. I just am extraordinarily skeptical that ADS should be such a central place such a central role in that sort of division side of things. Rebecca would it be a good thing for me to try to get Kristen McClure to come to one of our meetings to address this. Who's Kristen McClure. The head of. She's the head of ADS. Yes although again I think we should get someone from the Secretary of State's office whether it's Tanya or others like to figure out how they do it. Like they don't do they aggregate all their data through ADS. I don't think they do. I don't I pretty sure but again we should why don't they. Like that's these are all questions what have they not is it because they haven't considered it is it because they have considered it but they have concerns. What what is the role that ADS plays with what kind of massive data that Secretary of State's office is processing and reporting out and protecting. I think they provide I think the most useful place for us to look in terms of thinking about how we should structure this new division. This entity. I think it's I think it's healthy for you to have that skepticism. I would I wouldn't necessarily be like hey ADS or IS department here's the thing that we need build now build it especially around data infrastructure. So for example like when I go in because I'm a data architect so I would like my job is to design these kinds of systems I would never consider myself the subject matter expert in the data that's happening. I would consider myself in the subject matter expert in being able to talk to the business leaders to be able to develop what it is that they need to better make their own decisions. So that's so that I would never expect the the ADS to develop this in silo on their own without the specific guidance of like the people who actually know criminal justice and actually know what it is that we need to decide here. Yeah that needs to happen absolutely. I do also think that I agree with you that it would be really interesting to see what the Secretary of State has like because they've already done this like how they reached out to the ADS like you're saying like what are the risks and pitfalls and assumptions that were not that were I'm not necessarily seeing here that they've probably dealt with. Anyone else. Susanna if you're talking I see your lips moving. Inside thoughts or in response to everything that we're saying. Well while we're here I will say that I agree with a lot of what's of what's being said we have to think about the risks of the hands into which we're putting these tasks and these data and I don't think any of us wants to be skeptical or unsure about our colleagues around government but but I think anything that's intended to serve as a watchdog function should be scrutinized in this way. So so there's that. I also agree with the statement that this is going to require significant infrastructure and if we're going to do this let's do it correctly because like which he said we don't want to spend years building something that we end up not using because we say well it took us three years and it's not even serving all of the needs that we needed to. That said I I'm not I'm not certain where where it should sit. I know you all have been having this conversation for a long time now and I don't really know that there's a clean answer for it. It feels more stable especially economically to put it in the executive branch because it's there it's visible it must be budgeted for etc. And yet again you know do we ask people to govern themselves and the data against which they're measured. So I just did a lot of talking I don't have any answers but is all kind of churning in my mind what you all are saying. I also and I'm just going to point this out now I'm looking directly at Act 65. Let's keep talking the way we are but I'm going to do what I did last summer which is these are the questions they've asked these are the questions we're answering. That's it because I think already I know where we're going to go we're going to we could go way into the weeds on this and get into really great ethics conversations but there's a report. There are very specific questions. There are five. And at our last meeting I talked about this group answering three one through three and then the last two you'll remember most time was talking about getting all the serious data you know rocket scientists together which I think witchy that includes you and getting them all to sit down and have that really cool conversation that I won't understand at all. And I think witchy you would be really important in that because you also have the social justice side of this and you may be able to catch something and all of the jargon that gets thrown out that I'm going to really miss. But I just wanted to say continue looking back at Act 65 it is on page 20. It's really quite clear what this report is supposed to answer and I think it's important to stay there. You'll remember last summer we started getting we oh Lord I don't even want to remember that it gives me hives. But we like when we went way way out into some really interesting stuff and you'll remember all of a sudden it was like yeah no no here are the questions answer the questions that's it. This is like a term paper it is not a dissertation. So I just would I would encourage you all of us to look again at the act as enacted and make sure that we're answering those questions. This process is already underway. We're not coming into this at the ground floor. And Tom in the chat people have been helpfully pulling those questions out. And nice. I know there's chat here. Look at that. Wichee even asked that. Sure Wichee I can and David sent you the what I'm going to just stop now because everybody else is like handling it. It's cool. It's great to get to keep us focused on these critical questions. I do think that a lot of the discussion tonight is surrounding that and sort of reminding us of where where we have answered these questions. How do you so we are we're meeting weekly. This is an incredible amount of time. How do you suggest we we go about this then. Terms of these. Personally I think everyone should look at the report that we put out that we should get a good handle and I can resend that out. Tomorrow morning I can look for it again and send it out and ask that people look at it between now and next Monday. And I would recommend that it be looked at with these questions that are in the chat in mind. Certainly the first three which is what we were talking about this group answering how the Bureau should conduct data collection analysis that was something you'll remember. This was a this was sort of a awkward moment when coach put this in and you'll remember that because we were all sitting here going. We threw this to you all you're the lawmakers. We're not experts on this. We told you this needed to be done. That was our job. We said this needs to happen and it somehow is magically back in part of Act 65 a year later how the Bureau should conduct data collection analysis. The only difference is we actually are working with experts now who can take a stab at answering that. I have no idea how long that will take. Similarly Question 5 the best methods for the Bureau to enforce its data collection and analysis responsibilities. That's something that Tyler Allen has been asking. That is something that Chief Stevens has been asking since God was young. And I think that we should look at that report with reference to these specific questions. And really focus our thinking. Does that sound like a plan. You hold on Curtis. I've got to mute myself. Go. All right. You know when I see the questions the most critical question is not there which is how much is all this going to cost. You know there's you know the legislature is great at asking for recommendations but then there are no dollar figures next to them. Or they set no sort of parameters in terms of cost. I think it would be innovative. To step up and say here are your answer to the five questions and this is how much it will cost to implement those and to implement those in a way that we would feel satisfied. So Karen since you are in this business. Yes Curtis. You know to build out an entire system to do what it is we've been talking about in the ether world. What figure would you put on that. Given that you won't build it up over the course of a year but it will take three to five years to really build it up and then moving forward. You know I'm not going to answer that right now but I will talk with Robin and maybe with Witchie and we'll come up with some kind of ballpark. I think that's the best way to do it because off the top of my head it's a lot of money and it also depends it also depends on whether you're building it on a system that exists or if you're creating a whole standalone system. So there are some other factors that come into play here and maybe we could come up with a way to look at both options. OK because I was just 10 million a year for 15 years. Minimum. So is this further background on this question of money? Yeah. I just wanted to. That they've asked us to recommend then pardon my French but it becomes a fool's errand if they're not willing to make the full commitment. You know it's so interesting you're saying this because I remember a Tom's compelling testimony in front of multiple committees talking about putting money behind this. It was so compelling. And so I think Curtis you make a really good point. You know there are and I'm not going to even attempt to repeat what you said Tom but it was such incredible testimony and it really brought home the importance of doing this work and doing it correctly and funding it correctly. And I think maybe we need to bring that to the forefront again and maybe that needs to be part of the report that we send in is is what you said to all those committees because that was a really important powerful piece. Well thank you and I haven't memorized now so. You do. Which you you had your hand up. Yeah I just wanted to add to what Karen was saying. I I agree that there's too many missing pieces and I think the most important piece that I don't know that's been answered is what is being what are the answers that we're trying and what are the questions that we're trying to answer with this architecture because it's like you know if we're trying to answer like this small questions it's like OK maybe five years if we're trying to answer this it's like OK maybe it's the 15 years and then and then that will also dictate how much staff you need. And I agree with Karen like knowing where where we stand if we're building it from scratch or is there a foundation that we need to stand on now we can stand on me. But I I agree with Carter that answering the question of cost is going to be really important here. Which you can I throw something back at you as a question. Oh God it just went out of my brain. How yeah it's been one of those days. And what makes sense to you in terms of a time frame. You mean to build this thing. How yeah and more than what makes sense to you how would you even go about answering that. I think we need to figure out what it is that we want in order to answer that. All architecture is going to look different depending on what it is that you're trying to answer and especially when you want to have the foresight. So like in order to answer that question we have to like we would have to just like list the stakeholders of like who are who are we like what are we trying to answer who are we trying to answer it for and how much money you got. I feel like those are the three big questions in order to be able to tell you time. What would you do if I see Rebecca let me just finish this because Lord knows it'll disappear in a second. What what would you do if those questions were something that were diachronic in in terms of their nature. In other words something that's answered over time that may look one way in April and the answers may look very different in December. Because that's kind of more reality than anything else we've been discussing. I'm going to be like brutally honest with you. That is scope creep and that will make the project fail. That's sort of like my my my hard opinion on that. It's like we it takes time to develop these things so like we want to know I think what's important is like it's important to recognize that we don't know what we want in the future. And that's OK. We need to make some guesses but it's OK not to know. But we can't say hey in April we want this thing and then we're like trying to build it and then come February or March. They're like actually you want this other thing. Like that is what's going to make this project fail. So we need to make sure that we know what we want by when we want it and then that's what we're going to do and we're going to come into it. And then we can iterate after that. Thank you. Rebecca. I wanted to highlight that in our other report we identified various discretionary decision making points throughout these two systems criminal and juvenile justice as the collection questions we wanted to have answered and then within that huge massive number of points identified we we recognized that wasn't possibly something you could get to build an answer right away. And so we went within that and did a priority within. What's possible what we may have to do this go around is narrow within that subgroup of previously identified priority. Again we're not starting from ground zero here. We did so much work on this and I like a time that you're centering us to go back to this report and go to the next level right. So if this is something that the legislature has already indicated they're pre-approving one exact two staff roughly speaking right. And we can estimate what kind of budget that is. You know this AISP talked about the easier data what's really hard data to go after right. What's what's already publicly available. What's already there. What within like so this intersection point of where substantively area wise policy wise we can maybe find finesse that that smaller group of high priority and also learn within that group what's the easiest within. And then is it that after our experts we consult this summer is the recommendation that we narrow in on one two three four questions that we want to ask get that into our recommendation right. And then build up because you're right like on one level we want to build this right. We don't want the enormity of it to make this never get out of the gate. My understanding again though deference to the experts on how to do this that that you that we don't go out asking all these questions like I just don't know how many and what would be the best questions. Susanna you've been very elusive sometimes your hands up sometimes it's down. Are you you know feeling it or like not. I got intimidated when which he said scope creep because what I was going to say is a hundred percent scope creep so I took my hand down. This is something you all have already say before but I just cannot stop this nagging feeling that it will be suggest it has been suggested that this what we're talking about should be expanded to include more than race. And so I guess what I was going to say now to the group is what responsibility if any do we have to consider building something that we believe can be adapted scaled expanded etc. Understanding where the racial disparities panel and that our obligation is to answer the narrow questions we were asked that are relevant to race. But with the understanding that we know how state government works if someone's going to come to us and say hey what about this other thing. And I just wonder if if what we're what we end up proposing is too close of a universe or if it's cited too narrowly in a place. And I don't know maybe that's not our problem and not our job but just trying to plan for later. And nobody has to say anything if you don't want to about it's just what I've been thinking about. No I I actually been thinking about this. I have an idea I've had an idea. I'm like ready to write this in fact. I was like looking at Rebecca's drawing which doesn't give me a migraine unlike the one that's in our report last year and I want to put in dotted line circles that all have arrows pointing to the central bureau and say and these are things that might happen later that are going to be other things. So for those of you who were concerned senators whose names I won't mention here see it's it's like Mr. Potato Head you can just plug in things whenever you need to and that will change over time and we fully expect that it will. The only thing I want to say is I appreciate your point in terms of too narrow of a focus on this rate. But we we have in our report in terms of collection area that we wanted to collect was demographics and within that category we identified so much more. I can't remember everything we identified as something we wanted was beyond race race ethnicity gender age class. I forget what else. The intersectionality points to really understand the full person right. It's artificial to just collect on race. It's an incomplete picture right and so we recognize that in our last report maybe then this process of identifying prioritizing which questions we want to answer should include what demographic collection points we want to have to answer to confirm that again. Curtis has a point and then we'll go to Witchie. Okay so I am back on this idea. There's nearly a trillion dollars under capital asset management in the state of Vermont. We could and I'm already making the you know formerly in the pitch in my head of you know the existential threat to Vermont if this work is not done. As a selling point to the private sector that they need to capitalize this effort around data collection analysis and reporting because they have a long term interest. They're they're not in the business just for a year or two or three years but they're looking at a generational timeline and I think we could tap into that generational timeline to say it's in your best interest to commit each of your firms $10 million a year for 15 years which is just just a drop in the bucket of their net worth. So I know the focus is on responding to what the legislature has asked but I'd also like to engage people in thinking about something much broader and substantive because we're going to be scrapping around for you know $500,000 from the legislature next year. We couldn't get 50 to pay the community members for this. Right so why bother with the state if you can build it with private funds that understand the existential threat for not doing this work. So I'm going to button it up with that. Witchy. I think Karen was trying to say something before I put my hand up so I'm going to check it out. Oh okay just kidding. Okay so I want to say that I do think you know Toshila's point in the chat it is really it is important and this is how it's coming obviously it is important to center BIPOC with intersectionality because it's how we're going to see a lot more and a lot deeper and it was even in the package right that was given to us that we need to consistently look at intersectionality because we're going to see more patterns be able to identify things more that way and I think a lot of this and a lot of the creation around this project around this kind of project is an exercise of like letting things go and we're not going to get everything we want we may in the future but we really I the actually the focus in that little box you want that little box you want to think about outside the box you want to think about where you're going in the long term so you don't put yourself into it right but you want to do it small because you're going to be able to get the you're going to be able to get the the result a lot quicker if you make for if you'd go for like smaller projects and then you just build on it like a missed a potato hide. I like that analogy I think it works. I'm old what I'm hearing three things for next week. One is oh Sheila Sheila your hand was up and then it went away. Sorry I was like I don't know I have trouble doing things. I was like I'm in there I'm not I guess anyway so I just want to thank you witchy for bringing my chats into this space I just want to say you know commenting on what I wrote in the chat is centering BIPOC or intersectionality and being specific of what I think when I say that is that we have an opportunity to focus this around race and race data collection within the intersectionality so we can still center BIPOC but center BIPOC and center trans folks and queer folks and poor folks and who are of color and like really do that kind of collection because often we're the ones who disproportionately are not represented or told we can or all these different reasons why the data isn't correct so I would like to say yes and that yes let's collect all of that data that everybody's going to seek from it's great throughout whatever you want and then let's center into BIPOC that's what I feel like would be a happy medium with that and I think that would be something really um phenomenal for a state. Go ahead. What the consequences of the central threat be that if we ignore BIPOC then you know that the state economy will collapse our education system will collapse our housing and health systems will collapse so yeah I mean it's I love what you said you know thinking outside of the box well I think this is an option outside of the box not that this particular but I'm just thinking saying that there's I think there are resources to be had with the right pitch. Hey Tana I have a comment if there's time. Go for it. Thank you um so one of the things that I that I'm hearing and scares me a little bit is this inclusion of other demographic information and and let me tell you why that I'm not sure how much we want our government collecting about people who are going through the criminal justice system like who in government is going to ask are you trans and where in government is that going to stay and what happens to it and what if I don't want to answer that question what if I want to pass or I want the anonymity that I get for just you know answering gender identity which again I will then you know point you know go back to Curtis's earlier point of there are a lot of organizations like the Pride Center who would be a better source of information and a safer source of information that should be funded as well to collect the data that you want to make good public policy so that's my really scared that we're going to be collecting a lot of information within the criminal justice system about people to answer questions when maybe it's not the government that ought to be collecting that information. That's a great point Robin thank you for that. Yeah sure. I also just want to follow up on something on what Curtis has been encouraging us to look at and I think that should stay on the table because I think there's no way that the legislature is going to fund the enormity of what we're talking about right now and there may be some additional thinking outside the box that needs to happen around what that looks like but I think if we want this to move forward in the way we want it to move forward I think at least keeping that conversation on the table around how this gets funded is a really important piece. I do too. I'm just I'm of necessity caught because oh David you want to go. You can keep going Anton I'll speak after. Okay I'm a necessity caught because I I put all my fight into getting asked 65 and so I'm like okay we'll answer those questions. So I'm a little like on the train right now although I really like everything that's not on the train. I mean the Starship is way more interesting. Well sorry. No it's way more interesting but I also feel that what needs to be put forth here is the legislature is behind where they think this may be going. They are behind these questions being answered. They are behind pushing this through in this biennium. If this goes roughly in this pattern in this way I am not sanguine that it will be so. If we come back to them and go actually we didn't answer your questions we're into we're gonna we need you to go to the public sector I mean and the private sector and we need to we need to make a challenge here to get people to put money in on this because we know you all ain't gonna fund it. You couldn't fund us. I'm sorry I'm not letting that go. And no but seriously right $50,000 we asked for. This is a rounding error in a budget of seven billion. This is oh damn let's go to Starbucks and get a latte and they made an issue about it. So if that was an issue I mean we're gonna be I think one of the problems is I and I found this as well when they were going through all these questions this was like the right size this year. They could handle this. The minute it got any bigger they like got nervous. And then we weren't having hearings we were having discussions that were oddly taped on YouTube. So there were just all sorts of really strange things that happened when it got bigger. So I'm kind of caught right now because I really like the Starship model of like you know let's just go to the private sector and like throw it open but I'm also really aware that the legislators are there's a limit to what they're gonna read. So what they're gonna read. David can I just take a minute and respond. I don't disagree with you Aton at all at all. I think the questions need to be answered I think you're on the right train I think that's what we should be doing here. I just think we should kind of hold what Curtis is talking about kind of what do they say when you do facilitated meetings kind of you know on the on the paper on the wall so that we don't so that we don't lose that somewhere in the discussion we just hold it while we do this other work because if it comes down to it we can we know we can go there and I just don't want to forget that he's mentioned that and if it comes down to it after the session and they haven't done what we are hoping they're going to do with this then we can go someplace else with it if it comes down to that. Okay thank you. Yeah I don't disagree with you. Thanks David. Dave. Thanks Aton you know I just had a bunch of thoughts and as I was working through them I realized it may come my ultimate takeaway here I think comes down to reiterating your agenda point for next week Aton which is that we reread our immediately prior report the report that led to this project because I think that a bunch of the stuff we're getting at here a bunch of these ideas that are floating out there could be anchored a little bit more clearly if we trust our own prior work and in particular I think that we're trying to think about well where should the bureau go how big should it be what's the budget therefore. I think if we look at question three in the context of our prior report in particular that may be a nice anchoring point to say okay this is what we think the bureau should do these are the questions we want the bureau to be handling and again I actually think I keep coming back to the prior report because I think we did a bunch of that work already and we can use that as a way to say hey this is what we already said should be the priority maybe our mission then and I'm just not saying this is what it will be but maybe one option is our mission is just that we want to see this data collected the priority data collected that we already identified last year and then we can bring in people who and I know we have some of these folks already we can bring in more as needed who really know what it means to execute on that that and tell us a bit about what the staffing is going to look like it's going to have to look like to actually accomplish that and then I think that helps us think more clearly about a couple of the other questions as well including you know thinking about how to staff it and what kind of bunch of things we might be facing but I think that all that is to say is just supporting Eitan's point that I actually think going back to that prior report it's going to help anger us and in particular help us focus on question three which will help some other dominoes fall. I'm muted so what I will do an action item is tomorrow morning don't hold me to a time people I will send out both the report from December of 2020 and I will send out again a link to Act 65 with all these questions and I will resend the email that I sent earlier I don't remember what day with the link to the article that I'm hoping we will all look at. I will send out those three things it will be a weighty email to start working at what David has suggested as well. So it's going to be a bunch of reading. You've read a lot of it well you haven't witchy but I don't know what to tell you. I'm sorry I'll look and see if I have notes somewhere that I could send you that's like directed because I do that sometimes but I will I will send all that out tomorrow morning so that we can get a refresh on all of that is that working. I see some nodding okay other points. Jess did you have your hand up. No I was trying to turn my camera on so I could give a thumbs up in response to your last. I unmuted myself instead of turning my camera on. I get confused I don't know what I'm pushing anymore. I my recommend I don't know we have nine minutes left. I feel like we should call it good with this and I will send out. Could I could I just jump in because I did others. Robin thanks for sharing that home that woman that speaker to last week on yes with the title. She was great. I just wanted to make sure we didn't lose that thread before we get deeper. Like I didn't get there did others or you listen to it were there points that are relevant for where we are right now in terms of other things Aetan should be sending us. Hard to say. Her history of crime stats I mean she she gave a really great you know grounding I think on the history of how stats how you know administrative data has traditionally left out people etc etc there the move to Niber so we have been a Niber's compliant state since the 1990s. So a lot of what she was talking about was how crime rates are going to go up for a lot of the country because they're going from this one reporting system to the reporting system that we've always been using. So that's so that wouldn't be a concern for us here but Aetan what did you think of her or her points or or anyone else. I was rather persuaded by how it wasn't simple it was there was a certain eloquence to how she wrapped up both the exclusionary process and data that's missing and I was I was rather impressed by that. I don't know what I took from that in terms of an action point but it was illustrative. Yeah so Rebecca I can send you the link so it's up on their you it's up and just to you know full disclosure here Haymarket Books is not a conservative outlet let's just put it that way you know they they've helped they they they have a really a lot of good activists and activist scholars so that she's on their on their YouTube channel so I can send the link out for that so you can watch it and if people have specific questions about what her points were and how they apply to Vermont Nibers happy to answer that for anyone. Great thanks. Yep thanks Robin. And Ian just posted that actually. Okay I didn't Ian did oh Ian yes you said Ian. Ian just posted the YouTube link. So why don't we've got some work to do I will send that out in the morning. And otherwise I'm going to just recommend that we close now. I think a lot's been thrown out I think not thrown out like in the trash but up in the air which is good and a good first meeting and as I say we'll send this stuff out. I think David has a good action item in suggesting that we take a look at these documents and then look specifically at question three what should be the scope of the Bureau's mission. The domino metaphor works I think that a lot of other things will fall into place. And yeah Karen we got to keep what Curtis put off. I mean it needs to stay on the table because I was I will be honest I was frightened by sitting in a hearing that was being taped on YouTube and senators were going you know I can't support this it's just about criminal justice and juvenile justice. And I just sat there just feeling like a balloon someone had stuck a fork in you know like going what the hell have I been doing. It's it's called the RDAT I mean actually the criminal just criminal and juvenile justice system you know advisory panel and we didn't write about education and you're having an issue. Really. I mean what the hell and yet they vote. So I don't think I'm over that trauma yet. I'll work on that. My triggers on my own responsibility I understand that. So I will send off all this lovely reading to you fine people at some point tomorrow morning after I've had my tea and we will meet again next week. Thank you all very much for your time. I again I know this is inconvenient. I mean to say that is just so stupid but it is inconvenient and I'm very grateful that you all can make the effort. I'm grateful I can make the effort. We'll get it done. We'll get it done. No matter how negative I get just slap me. Oh you can. We're remote. Oh well. Anyway. Curtis can. Curtis can. He's right there with you. So I will send things out in the morning and we'll go from there. All right. Good discussion everybody. Yeah thank you. Bye bye. Thank you. Bye bye.