 And let's start with, welcome, welcome. Sorry about last month, I really couldn't send out what I wrote, it was, you all would have lost any modicum of respect that you might have had. So thank you for that, thank you for your indulgence. And let's go with introductions for the camera. I'm Ken Shucks, commissioner of the Department for Children and Families. I'm Dr. Turner, designee for the Department of General. James Pepper, designee for the Department of State's Train and Chairs. David Schinner, designee for the train and general's office. Jeff Jones at the barge. Rick Goff here, criminal justice training council. Jed Furpo, criminal justice training council. Don Stevens, have an eye game. Brian Greerson, criminal justice here in designee. Monica Wieger, designee for the Department of Corrections. Garry Scott, designee for the Department of Public Safety and State Police. And A-Ton, that's for the long-boat chair. And Rebecca, Jessica? Thank you. OK, announcements. Jessica's on the phone. The only other regret that I got was from Sheila Linden, who just couldn't make this particular Tuesday. So that's it for the announcements. I have any but other people have. That would be no. OK, moving right along, the minutes from the meeting of April 30th, which sort of was our last meeting and it never left, changes, addenda, OK, anybody want to make a motion? Seconds? All in favor? All opposed? All abstaining? Motion to carry? We approve them. Thank you, David, for your usual, what would be the word? Trial. The agenda that I put up and sent out to you was kind of a little distracted. What I wanted to put in here, I put in on the agenda that you have at the moment, is a brief presentation discussion really is going to be brief of the race and traffic stop data for last year for the Vermont State Police. It was released in June. There was a fair and impartial committee meeting in June. It's been on CAX and all the rest of it. But I think that there's a certain overlap between the work of that group and the work that we're doing, maybe a bit tangential, but it's still there. So I asked Captain Scott to give us a short presentation on that so that you can see where that's at. Go ahead, Ryan. So we are required by law to submit our data. Every area law enforcement agency in the state must have it in by September. We usually shoot evidence by June at our fair and impartial police meeting. We have a woman that works for the state police that does all this data internally. And so we, since the major release in 2015, we have sort of learned where we made a lot of mistakes and how to have a correction in training of troopers, making sure we're capturing all the data on correctly. There was a lot of errors being made when you came to duplication from multiple tickets issued on a traffic stop to crashes. So an example would be like a DUI crash in having that person counted multiple times in the data and making sure you are cleaning that up because you have an arrest, you have a crash report, you have a traffic stop, whatever the tickets that were issued in was then put under a movie violation or an investigation stop. So there's been a lot of training since 2015 that has gone into where we're seeing we're having significant reduction in errors in our data. This year we had 0.05%, but we're still seeing errors where troopers are making mistakes and not capturing data, particularly arrests. An example would be an excessive speed on the interstate. A person going 110 miles an hour, trooper runs radar and decides to pull them over, and they're going to arrest them immediately. They get out and they arrest them and bring them back and get the citation and go to court. That's an example where they still need to issue a traffic stop paperwork, either a warning or a traffic ticket to them. So we've gone back through all the barracks to find, through oddity to determine that we're capturing all of that, too. So there was some changes in this year for some error rates that went up from 0.05% to 0.05%. That was really the big reason why we saw that. We are still seeing disparate rates when it comes to searches of black operators. And another big point is this is all just operator information. In the upcoming year, we'll see a change in the back of the traffic ticket for passenger searches. And that training should be going up pretty soon. Mr. Goff, you and I will be, this week, help finalize that for the local agencies. And I will present the first training on this to state police this week as well. So to capture, if the passenger is the focus of the search now, that information will be captured on the back of the traffic ticket. But to still train and have it run out with that. So I'm guessing within the next year, we'll see some hit levels again of how that's being captured and what errors we run into. So that would be a learning process again, much like this traffic study. For the most part, we made about 58,000 total car stops. Externally generated means things that where the trooper isn't big is a discretion to stop that vehicle. So that's the pull out of this type of stuff. He gets information from an outside source, BOL, a 911 call taker, another officer puts information out to have that vehicle stop. That's externally generated. Suspicions of DUI can also sometimes be in the area of the top of how it comes in. But basically, the focus of the traffic stop down at the bus stops that trooper is making and what that means. So if you really want to pull out the BOL to finish down the bottom, you see search rates excluding externally generated. And you'll see under black operators that 1.63%. And that has remained, it's gone down, but it still is an area of concern for us and why hasn't it leveled up. So a black operator is still three times more likely to be searched. And you can see if you look up, there's only 30-ish, 3.25 total searches out of the 58, total of 1,000 car stops that we had. But it's still an area of the graph on the next page sort of shows of where we're getting close together. It's come down significantly since the release in 2015, but it's still not all the way there yet of where we would exactly like it to be. And Professor Sugino advised us that what a perfect world could sort of look like is a criss-cross of that, 11 out of that. And so that's still an area where we're shooting in. And not there's still one to have exact reasons of why that continues to occur, other than implicit explicit bias that's occurring with the multitude of training. But we're happy to see that it's continued to get closer together. The other big issue that we're looking at is that back graph, tickets issue, is black operators are still being ticketed at a higher rate than black operators. And again, that's an area of confusion for us as we look to the last, since 2015 to 2018, we have a significant change of road troopers that are on the road in uniform, making traffic stops. With all this training, all the messaging, we're still seeing that disparate rate in there. And that's an area we still can't really quite understand how, what we're missing in that piece there of why that continues to occur in there, even though you see a pretty significant change of new road troopers that are out there. You're usually doing the bulk of this traffic stop work. So it's not the old guard, so to speak, of troopers that are out there really making the most traffic stops. It's a newer trooper. So that's an area where we're still continuing to tackle, bringing community members, Aeton and Curtis Reed, and training. We have informal leaders training, but this is still sort of the area we're still looking at and trying to tackle why this is happening in there. And with such a small task, it's difficult sometimes. So what we do going forward is every station commander is held responsible for looking at the stops in their station and then drilling down. Because you get back when it gets to 25, 30, it's probably gonna be well five to four in some stations and they pull out those traffic stops and look at what they pull the ticket and review the video and put all that together to see what actually happened on those stops. We also did not receive any internal complaints related to racial disparities last year to our internal affairs process. That's sort of a quick down and dirty look at that. All this data is on our website. Also, it's very clear, it's also sent to the CRJ and I'm happy to consider any questions. But the spare, we were talking about the tickets, is this 40% out here that are 1.63. Oh yeah, I'm gonna take it. I'm gonna take it and give practice. 40 compared to 36, correct. And 50% part Asian. Correct. And the Asian number, and that's a training is a, and it's, we're going back and forth again to the people who is capturing the Asian category. Sometimes people of Arabic, maybe sort of just backgrounds maybe capturing that, sometimes not. Our training is that the person in the middle of the descent shouldn't go into the Asian category. So that's not a little bit of a change we've trained there for the last two years. So we'll exit on another area, we'll continue to look at. And you said you internally put these things together all of the charts and the professors to bring out and do any of them now from their statistical testing on it. She takes this and has, and that's on our webpage also, what she's done. She's done two different reports that are full of our webpage that she's doing. The first one from 2015, and then a deeper dive that she did of the 2015 data. But she got on CAX and did an interview on it. She was there, and I heard at least about it. She's looked at it. The only reason I ask, it's a wonky question of course, but it's just because there's such a small number of people in the data set that it's hard to kind of compare a percentage of people because if that was anything that she had addressed. But, I mean they are what they are, not just being in the rescue, and that's what it's all about. She gave us some praise to us at the end of the interview, but she's a partner with us. I always look at this in the work that we're doing. Jeffrey would answer that. I think she was pretty overall positive, she thinks we're going the right way. You know what you have to remember, she's a daughter of a New York City cop, and her uncle is a New York City cop, so she gets it very much, she gets it. And I think that's an important thing to remember because everyone has bias, and her bias is maybe less like people think it might be, all right? You know what I'm saying, I'm old. I'm just saying this might not be true. Yeah, it depends on who you are. You know, Dr. Sinclair, if your data that you share is not matched by other local non-poisoning agencies, is that right? So I understood that from Dr. Sinclair. That's what we're putting out. That's right, if you, to your credit, or share right now. Other agencies are just required to put it into CRT for a while. Yeah. And just so I understand, just taking one example, Asian hip rape here for searches, contraband-bound searches is 100%. So, but then the arrest from searches is only 40%. So I might understand that searches done 100% of the time for Asians stopped. Something was found. Something was found, but 60% of those were just not arrested? Right, they got it ticketed. I see. You would consider it like pot contraband, but it's not the legal evidence, so. It was cigarette, what else could it be? It could be alcohol. Okay. It's not an arrestable offense, but a fine in one way or another. Well, you're doing great with our community, keep it up, don't take it. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Perhaps I'll have to call out on the warrior. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Could I ask you just to expand a little bit on the status of other agencies? I mean, I know what I've heard you before, but I think many people just think, I find some lacking in some other agencies. Yeah, I don't think I can really completely comment on that. Other than knowing that the resources are difficult to really put all in. The person that does this for us does this on overtime in addition to our regular duties. And that's because she enjoys it, like she did to it, that sort of thing that she wanted to do. So I think it's very difficult for a smaller agency, five, six people to really have to find funding to really get someone to do it. So they're doing that, and there's no other requirement other than from the law of them to dump it to CRG. So as long as they're meeting that requirement, they're making compliance with the law. Obviously that. I don't know if Rick may want to jump in that a little bit more. He probably really doesn't want to jump in that. Well, I will say that there's a method to that question, obviously, you and I are both aware of it. I'd like to consider that this might be a place where resources could be placed at a made available out of the departments to do this level of work. That's where I was going. So I will jump in a little bit. I'm aware that CRG put a proposal in front of government operations regarding what they would need to kind of simplify the sole of that election reporting process. And as you can imagine, it's a resource issue. CRG came up with something that they pitched to Senate. And for whatever reason, I couldn't tell you, I didn't make the cut in bills over Senate development. I don't know where it went. But I do know that CRG had been taking a look at the whole making the report easily obtainable and interpreted by anybody you want. I suspect it's going to come back again this year in this legislative session. I haven't talked to Karen. I've been communicating. Some agencies send their reports to me and send it forward to Karen. So we have a little group email exchanges. We get closer to the legislative session. We'll touch base again on what exactly is that she's put together. I suspect we'll probably get a little more receptivity in this upcoming session, perhaps whatever it is she's got. And I wish I could compare it to what it was, unfortunately, at all. I can get that from her in real later. But she had a proposal really simplified. I think she was pretty enthusiastic about it. I didn't get it by either House Orson. I know it went to Senate. I don't know if it went to House. This is one of the few sessions I had and there was nothing to do with House or House. So I know what the Senate talked to the Chair, you know why, and she'd seen that. And then that was the last, I know of anything. Probably could have tracked that better but that was up to my armpits and alligators, my own, so I started to play sessions. So I just, unfortunately, didn't track that as well as I should have. We tracked those bills to do on the line and we just got a bill number you can see where they go, where they're in, where the readings are. I mean, that's what I do with my stuff, too. You know, I got the sense, too, that it is a lot of resource issue. I think what I've been hearing is that the place where the data is being compiled, in this case, CRG, that it is hard to then get at that raw data to get independent review of it. That what CRG is then doing, as I understand, is sort of summarizing reports, put it into reports, but to get the raw data that you are providing to CRG is actually not easy to understand for someone who's not CRG. Now that is problematic because as we have seen as our own panel, we have CRG comes in that there are computing reports, there are questions about how do we get checks on what person or what backstreet is doing. And so I think that for us, if we're going to make a recommendation that we want to keep seeing the data, we want to see the data being provided not just from state. We have to trust that who's collecting the data is actually going to give us the raw data so they can be in the process. Well, that serves you as a channel to see the data. Karen, I've talked to her a couple of times over the submission of the data, and it's supposed to come in with, it's supposed to come in as a non-identifying information and it is literally all over the map, what's your guess? So CRJ extends a fair amount of time cleaning the data that they got. And they found that, depending on the format which agency had submitted, they may have to go back to the agency and work with them to get that resubmitted format that they get accepted to not. So there's a couple of issues and those sorts of things were what she was talking about with regards to simplifying that process. The, I think happens, we look at this training, I think there's probably room for component or agency had to get tail end of the catalog with the course you have. But this is, I call it the jet, the jet planning, except if you run out of fuel getting up or once you're at altitude, there's a lot less resource to keep it going. It's the same thing with this process that Karen was talking about. We're a resource to keep it up there, but once you're up there, the maintenance costs are significantly reduced. The last point I would say is that second page is what we're finding toward, over and over again, is just sort of that consistency. When we're talking about census population, driving population, obviously you can see it for lack of operation, it was 2.9%. That's crashed out of the top chart, it's just a crashed out of it. And then this bottom chart is from motor vehicle stock data. So you can kind of compare that the driving population has increased for people of color in Vermont over the last couple of years that we're seeing comes to sort of crash in motor vehicle stock and it's not as consistent with the census population that we have. But yeah, the census data for blacks is at 1.3%. Okay, on a driver, I don't know. Just total state, total population census data is 1.3%, we're talking about just drivers. And that's fault, so the top one is anyone that's been involved in a motor vehicle crash is at the top, part of that that the operator of the vehicle, and the bottom one is just motor vehicle stops the lower seed for percentages. And just to clarify, the crashed data is considered to be a reasonable proxy for a driving population as a whole. Yes. And there's different methods of how you pull that out. We took all crashes, because some researchers would say when we take the non-involved driver, so there's different ways, so they're just at the same sort of party, and that's it. We took all, because some crashes had seven cars involved, we figured we'd just get, we wanted to see like that one, like, the first or something like that. I don't realize, I'm sorry, I don't realize the numbers for white, so I said white, so 94%, that's 6% of the braking average. And we call it 96. Yeah, yeah. But so it's still showing disparate, and is that across the board, too, for other new places, perceived places, or destinations? Or for what? Well, when compared to total demographics, compared to four. Four census, compared to? Yes, yes. So it's, the numbers are on the same page. And of all, the left, more so increased. Except for white. Other questions, comments? Thank you, Rob. That leads really easily into a discussion of the draft for our report. As we were talking just now, I was thinking, I thought I'd written something about data. It was the real thing. But maybe we need to beef it up. And make it more clean. There, thank you. There it is. But it's on page three at the top, first bullet point. But it may need to be more clean. I don't know. Why don't we just do this, starting with you. Well, I'm left handed, so I'm just going like this. So I don't understand the right. That's it. In any event, why don't we just go, I think we should just go around and get reactions, criticisms, suggestions for changes, et cetera, et cetera. And David, dear. I'm ready. React. So I'll start off. And so for first, let me thank you, because I do really appreciate the effort, the work that went into this. The scope, I think, was really helpful. I appreciated getting something to work with, Ken. And I appreciate your openness to, as you just indicated, for us to comment on. So rip that apart. No, no, no, I'm not going to do that. Feel free. And again, some of these areas to be candid are not things that I'm that familiar with. Because my involvement is really more in the Journal of Justice, really. And much of this has to do with the adult system that obviously I don't know that much about. So I'll sort of start by maybe with an overall editing comment, which sort of relates to the back and forth about data. I actually make a suggestion with respect to the bullets that we add a heading so that it's easier to read. Got it. And I have some ideas, but others may have better ones. So for example, on that one we just talked about, I caught a data collection as a heading so people can understand what we're talking about. I can go through each of one of them if it's up. Great. But so that's sort of the general kind of whatever non-substantive comment. But so with respect to the preamble, I do have a response that I want to be honest and share. And that's sort of maybe just acknowledging my being white now. But I think the phrase white supremacy was a little hard for me to think about. I would suggest considering using the phrase institutional racism. And part of that is going to, and again it's a perception issue and being straightforward about it. When I think of white supremacy, I think of the issues in the news about drivers driving into protesters. And I think the connotation is perhaps more extreme. The point about racism I think is really important. And obviously we've heard phrases who talk about bias and there may be other ways to say it, but I will share with you that that's a sort of my comment. And again I'm also thinking about my response and also frankly the response of others who read it. And again I'm open to more conversation to be clear in terms of not just if I have a sense of urgency about it. So then the other sort of minor comment on that opening preamble is, and maybe I'm wrong about this, but you refer to the attorney general's advisory panel. I think it's a legislative who created us, but that the attorney general was asked to convene. And so to again, relatively minor point. No, no, no, no. I don't know what I'm doing. No, no. I don't know what I'm doing. Somebody told me it was the attorney general's advice and I just like the repair thing that, because it's long. Anyway, so I think that's right. So then my comments, so I would for example on the first bullet, consider giving a heading of community input on policy. Got it. I'm going to get away with the other ways to say it. With respect to the second bullet, I think just call that training or something like that. The other comment I would like to make on the training section, and it's not a negative but more supplement, is one of the things that I've learned in my work is that one-shot trainings or even training that continue to have value for honestly coaching, supervision, ongoing. And again, Gary just talked about it himself when he talked about putting supervisors on notice about what they're responsible for related to this issue or important components. So again, it's education, coaching on an ongoing basis and I would recommend putting that as a comment or statement that we recognize just saying to entities like me, even to say to my staff, you get a training orientation and a training every couple of years, that's not good enough. Right. And then data collection, as you said, I think we could try to beat that up. And I think you can call that data collection but I think making some of the points that have been made already today about approaching that. And then the notion, and then I will sort of back up, I can't really speak about the section that I saw about pre-trial monitors, I just don't know that much. And then I do appreciate the diversion issue. This has come up a lot in the digital world too. I think this is a challenge for all of us but I do agree that we do want to have a consistent approach to diversion. And then the next section, I thought of electronic monitoring, top four. Yeah, top four, thank you. And then the next vote, I would call it something like sentencing. Again, I don't have much to say about my work. Then the last bullet on page four, I don't know if you'll call it staffing or workforce or but again, I do appreciate the point about the need for more resources for the stakeholders in the system. And then again, I think that last bullet again is sort of related to community input on page five. But I think those are all really important parts. Then the next bullet, I don't have a short title but the notion of discretion is really important for my perspective. I appreciated the focus on it. We sometimes talk about decision points or sometimes I know we talk about sequential intercept model but I think what I took from it and I suggest emphasizing is the fact that there's discretion at many points in the process. And again, we just talk about stops and decisions by law enforcement officers, but every step of the way, different players and I think it's worth drawing out a little bit more specific that every step of the way there is discretion by stakeholders in the system. I think that's relevant to, okay. So I think for me, I'll stop, but I really felt that this is a really good first approach and look forward to hearing other comments. Great. Help me breathe. I haven't had enough time to reflect this. You're welcome. I know that I had promised to help you and then I did not deliver. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. It's fine. I made the same promise. It's fine. It's fine. I think that this is really a great capture of a nice reminder of all the work and discussions, topics that we have taken up and it's been all in the room. It's been everybody. It's been a lot. Yeah. And I like the idea and just listening to you talk about the headings of what each paragraph stands for the subject and starting to do it back here. I think that when we pull those out and see those as heading, we should as a group decide whether or not these are in fact the ones that we want to focus on and when we're missing some. And then within each of the headings, training, data collection, diversion, if these are the ones we do go with. I mean, it's one thing to talk about it but we think of problems and ways generally improve. If we settle on some, I think that perhaps this is when we break up into some small groups and delve in and get the expertise and put them in a time on a subject that we've got to come up with. And here is where we've definitely to be great. The wheel and certainly the two terms of power of the past of the month. So many great studies and high-level start sharing and we should start sharing particularly out of stuff that we have all, right? What other jurisdictions done that have been reports and studies done that we can almost compete or at least set the framework for? So I just thought ultimately what really great too but what I would hope we can be working towards with legislature would be something like this. Great. Thank you. So I would agree with Ken that that word where it was white supremacy jumped out at me. Okay. And it was I think during one of our very first meetings when one of our prior members mentioned white supremacy as the problem and it took me a number of years, two years while I was working at this group and immersing myself in racial justice issues to really understand what's meant by that because it immediately, you know, conjures images. Yeah. And it didn't torture me. And yeah, but I think that, you know, that word I'm not, those words are not afraid of putting in a report like this. I just think they would need more context in order to not kind of just, especially as the first sentence to have people kind of, you know, put up their guards with their hackles. So I mean, I'd be happy to work with kind of all kinds of context to what's meant by that. And then just moving further down about the third sentence. I think, you know, using some of the statutory language, you know, you said that the panel was convened to make recommendations for immigration, the effects of white supremacy. I think maybe using some of the actual statutory language there, I'd say the panel was convened for these three purposes for, I forget the exact. I haven't. Yeah, I think that might help, just put some guideposts in for the rest of the report. I should just take a step back. Thank you very much for revealing this word. I don't know, it's a tremendous amount of work, just putting it in one or two times that I did that, it's a tremendous amount of work. I think that's the other thing that is very heroic. It's fun. Yeah. I think, I don't know why it's funny. I think, so going to the third page about the data collection, I think, you know, for me, I know the state police do a great job, but it seems to me like there needs to be some sort of independent body and a surgery that's kind of going in and it relies a lot on self-portrait in any way, but it might make sense to just mention it. You know, if I'm reporting on it myself, there's a possibility that there might be some sort of bias living in there. Oh yeah. So, I think there's just one thought there. The two points down about the use of diversion over the objection of state's strengths, that's something that our state's strengths deal very strongly about. We feel it's a separation of powers issue and it's in the realm of prosecution, the executive branch, so, I mean, that's just a recommendation that would need some more. I can hurt that argument. I'm taking notes. Yeah. It's a very touching subject for some of us. I know. Pepper, I won't be in that. Yeah. That was a block from you. Yeah. So, it's just one that, you know, I would like before we submit it and find out to really dig into that and maybe there could be an identity number from the state or an identity number from the court. Or competing in different ways. Well, I mean, sure, but if you want to include it, just write it in. I mean, you can put, I don't care. The report here includes a debate. Right. That's right. I mean, we can have a minority report for that matter. It was a book. It was a book, actually. He said it. But, I mean, that's possible. I think it's something that we want to discuss. No matter what, I think this issue will come up this year. There's a presumption of the version of the human right that sunsets. It has to come up this year. It's about to sunset, which means the legislature, no matter what, will determine whether they want to extend it, whether they want to do something along the lines. So how nice we're doing this. Yeah. So no matter what, this issue will come up. Okay. I guess I didn't realize that. Yeah, that's a good question. Great. I think the next, the next bullet point on electronic monitoring, I think we'll tie nicely into a discussion about the elimination of cash bail. You know, I think that in Vermont, we have a constitutional provision that says that all miscellaneous shall be available. So we actually would have, if you want to move to a cash bail system that's based on risk, as opposed to risk to re-offend, as opposed to a flight from prosecution, it would probably require a constitutional amendment if you want to move to kind of the New Jersey or California model, which eliminated cash bail. But I know that there's a desire. I've heard people talk about it in a legislature every year, so there is, certainly if we talked about eliminating cash bail, moving more towards a risk-based bail system, I think that a recommendation was might be well received. And I think that that could also tie in with the prior recommendation about pre-trial monitors. Combine electronic monitoring with a system of pre-trial monitors, you know, I think that's what the federal system is. May I delegate? I'm batting my baby losing. Oh, I want to see if the pre-trial monitors is a program that's in the general's office. Well, kind of. Yeah, you people are like passing them on. It's really, it's very good work to get it. Oh, okay. But I mean, it would be, that's not, I get it, but I think you'd write it, though. Okay, no, I'd be happy to kind of look at this and the pre-trial monitor and can jump as it is kind of a replacement system for our cash bail system. Great. If they don't want to do cash bail, you can just say it's for one dollar, just like when you buy something, I bought this house for one buck. So you're so good with cash, but it's a buck. Right. Anyway, that was just a catch one. You should get one to get rid of all the cash. Oh, gee. Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't even think of that. No, it just gets there. Keep going, Gary, if you're, if you're good at it. If you're gonna step up, there we go. So that would be great. Yeah, I'd be happy to. It's an issue that, you know, we worked on a bail bill. Great. So we already kind of have a little bit of a head start. Great. That would be good. Thank you. With respect, two points down, with respect to staffing, it looks like we may have left out defense counsel. I think this is- I did. Yeah. I actually think- You didn't mean about that. Yeah, actually you say additional prosecutors and judges, but I actually think that it's ever really all folks working together. Yes. And with respect to defense counsels, I actually, two points down from that, when you talk about discretion and how implicit bias can meet unknowledge ways and decisions made by prosecutors, law enforcement, and judges, I also think defense counsel could be included in that list as well. Captain Scott made that point to me at an ex parte conversation. Yeah. Just because when you, you know, implicit bias as we know, it's when you have a huge case of loading and you make decisions very quickly all the time, you know, you might accept a deal, I mean, the client has to accept a deal, which may not meet unknowledge ways that implicit bias can meet unknowledge ways. And I think that is it. Okay. Great. Thank you. Dr. Shea. All right. So looking at, I'll start with some of the people that, I actually have to say, reading the first paragraph, the white supremacy piece did not actually immediately jump out at me, but having just, you know, heard discussion. One thing that occurs to me is that the use of that phrase, I think it's been around a recent expansion to use it for things that are more constitutional racism, more implicit bias and things like that. I could be wrong about the other one. It just depends on what realm you're in. In critical race theory, today white supremacy is kind of almost dated. It's like 1980s. When I got into critical race theory and not horribly seriously, because I wanted to write symphonies, but I was doing it and that was a term that floated around all the time. And it didn't actually get people riled up. This wasn't actually the term that I was gonna pull out for this. This is some from another panelist. But just so you know, that that's kind of background academically. Okay. No, and that's, I certainly wouldn't know that that was good to know. I think that, I guess what I'm getting at is I do think there are folks who will not perhaps have the same level of education as I think most of the panel does. Understanding that when we talk about white supremacy, we're not necessarily talking about over violence, but I do think that that is the meaning that comes to mind that many people will see. And because of that, it could be a stopping point for folks. Like it'll stop really. And so I think, I have no problem with using the phrase I have no issue at all. I do think having a bit more preamble to that. Okay. And maybe, you know, starting that a little further down is some way that we could accommodate both. Okay. Or flip note. Nevermind, I'm kidding. You're wrong. I know, suddenly I already got it. Be serious. Yeah, I think that they're at least maybe outside of academia. There seems to have been like a relatively long recent usage of it to cover a broader range of issues, at least among us uneducated white folk. Well, and you're right. I mean, the media has been using it in a way that is very tenacious and does not, to my mind, actually describe the nuances and the complexity of the term. But I, you know, I'm not gonna fight with Fox News. I'm not gonna fight with MSNBC. It's how they use it and, you know, make a good point if they're gonna stop reading. Well, that's kind of not helpful. Right. Like, maybe to read it. I don't think it's harmful to have some education in here. Right? Yeah. I think that we want to have that in order to make sure we don't put a stop sign up for some folks who are gonna be less comfortable. Yeah. You can use the word defendant. Yeah. And I don't necessarily think it's a legitimate feeling of offense. No, but it is what it is. I mean, right. That's why we're sitting here as a panel. Right. Right. So that was just adding my note to that. Let me get into the dive into the details a little bit more. One thing, so I'll jump right to data collection. Sure. And I will write this into my notes afterwards. I would say one thing that might be helpful is just name it very specifically the entities and operators who about whom data should be collected. So that, I think, should include prosecutors a lot of prosecutors may. Well, I think it should include, police already have a lot of data collection being done, but it could include defense attorneys. It could include, it should include diversion to name by own agency, diversion free trial services. We should be collecting data on this and whatnot. So I think naming some specific entities that are doing work in this area and do not have that collection, but who have a lot of power influence people's lives based on decisions they make, all that data should be collected, at least that we can. I think Connecticut actually just passed a bill that we could use as something of a, not necessarily a model to put the whole bill on here, but a model of like who did they require and what can we look for that. So anyway, being specific about that, so it's a way to say, oh, okay, these are the people that we really need to. Okay. I think that, well, there was a joint legislative justice oversight meeting last fall where they really got into this question, DOC produced a report about disparities in the car shortage of race and what the committee very quickly came to was like, all right, DOC is, actually doesn't have, it has a little bit of discretion, but actually doesn't have a lot of discretion to determine who is in. There are other people, other actors who have a lot of discretion to determine who is in and we don't have any dad other than police and we need to do a better job of collecting data about the full spectrum of the criminal justice process. So anyway, sorry, that was a bit of a tangent, but something I think is just working on. May I ask you a question at this moment or do you want to keep going? No, please ask the way. You're talking about these entities for whom collection already takes place and the ones for which it does not. You know those. I do not. I'm happy about that. I mean, I know you're crazy busy because like you disappear for like years, but is that something that you really can't? I'm not being facetious. I mean, you really can't because if not, just send me the stuff and I'll write. No, I'm really thinking about it. It's like I'm not gonna tell you. Okay, okay. So on the next one, so yeah, so this one was one where I feel like we want to have some and this is a little bit detail oriented, but I don't want legislators to get confused. There is a difference, I think, when we're talking about pre-trial services versus pre-trial monitoring, pre-trial monitoring is an essentially failed program to try to level it is. I don't want to get into that too much, but there was an attempt to add a lot more people to the roles of folks who would have, who would otherwise have been incarcerated, but instead are being monitored on the outside through pre-trial, through electronic monitoring. When we're talking about pre-trial services, it's really, I think there may have been a few years ago some idea that these things might be more related. They really have turned out not to be in a way these programs have been run out, ramped up. Pre-trial services is really about connecting people to, who are awaiting trial, connecting people to services such as, I can inflate this on the floor. So anyway. Sorry. No, no, it's very detail oriented stuff. There's, it's hard for people to get right who are in charge of passing the laws. Oh dear. All right. Yeah. Nothing to feel bad about at all, but I just want to make sure we're clear when we talk about that. So take out pre-trial monitors and simply it's pre-trial services. Yes. I want to say. Dave, I understand you're talking about bail. So what do you think about that? Well, it's all the way that we connect to this agreement and into the electronic monitoring. So there's another paragraph we're talking about on monitoring where I feel like bail is also something, or we could add a new paragraph about that. I have to say, that was fun to write because I was like googling everything. I mean, I was just like, what am I talking about? And the Google, you're right. It wasn't even clear that. And I think I was stupid that I just decided lawyers are smarter than I am. No, so the problem is that there's no in the read upon terminology at all, kind of just, we have Vermont has its own way of talking about this stuff. Frankly, it's evolving year by year. Also, it's very hard to know. The other piece that I wanted to highlight is the risk assessment tool. Yes. Is something that, it's not way of controversy. Yes. Some people feel that it is an important way to baseline what's happening. So you can say, all right, well, this, according to this objective input, which, you know, according to this objective input, this should have been the outcome, but this was the outcome in these cases. And it sort of provides the baseline where you can say, well, this person maybe do get inconsistently from what our validated risk assessment tool shows should have been happening. But there are other folks that feel like whatever subjective inputs go into that risk assessment tool themselves embody the sort of background, racialized things that happen in society. So it is baking into the process, problems that already exist. And people come out on different sides of the debate, right? I think our sense of it is like, well, yes, that probably is an issue. And it is still helpful to have a baseline to work from. Even if that baseline is itself imperfect because it pulls people at least, at least it reduces inconsistency and consistency to some degree as fairness. But there are people who would really object to my statement that I just made. So I just think noting that, that is something that we have to make a decision about is helpful to highlight. Sure. Okay. Okay, you're writing that, right? Yeah, I think so. I think I'm gonna have to turn it over to minutes at all. I'll add this to my minutes later. Okay. Yeah, the version thing I think is, I think Pepper said the important stuff there. And I would note again, we as a diversion program need to collect data. Which also means that the data collection has to really be beefed up. It's too short. It's not, it doesn't convey enough. On the electronic monitor, he's already said a bit of that. I think it is important on electronic monitoring, I would perhaps make a note that we wanna be clear that we would, electronic monitoring would not, I would have think that the goal would not be to add supervision or add supervisory burdens to people who would not have otherwise had them. We only want to have this be a substitute for incarceration. And so designing that, that's an important design piece that we want to have. But I would assume we want to emphasize obviously the panel can weigh in as it sees fit. And yes, I think, and just I'd echo again, at first point on bail, I think we made some useful changes and we could do a lot more on that. Okay. And that does fit together a little bit. Is there a concern that if you get away from a risk of flight, is it going to affect the people? Yeah, so I mean, the defender general and they can speak to themselves better than I can, but they, I think they would have serious concerns that if you open up the possibility of misdemeanor crimes being eligible to be held without bail, which could happen with a constitutional amendment, that would be something that they would be vehemently opposed to. And I would note like in California, that was actually the subject of serious controversy when they did pass their elimination of bail stuff. So none of these things are easy, but I think that I would, I do think we can do more. I think many people with, many people who practice in both systems would say the federal system is a better way of handling pretrial safety and pretrial detention issues and whatever we can do to move closer to that. And obviously we have to have a balancing with not potentially maybe not losing protections as people have now. I think many people would agree with that. I'm sure that not everybody would, but I do think a lot of folks feel like the federal system doesn't better and more fairly. They also have a lot of resources. I was just, I was just kidding, I don't like my turn, I'm done. You covered the resources issue very nicely in other fairs. I think that was actually my main, those were my main things. They were kind of like detail-oriented stuff but it's just stuff that I've been working on. Well, good. I mean, put you in a good position until we know. We craft that, so. Good, thank you. Ja. Are you just a couple? Please. So I was initially struggling with white-slides. Okay. And looking at it even beyond tactically in this paper but strategically, we have an extraordinary window to elect the officials. Be strategic in what we're doing. Yes. And I think that we should be looking at the disparity, not just the people of color but poor people because in my experience, cops treat people obviously poor, almost identical. I don't know, Gary may or may not agree with me but I certainly, in my life, have seen disparate treatment based on the condition of the vehicle which is the basis of the stop. So I spent a lot of time sort of brooding on how we could change that word to be more inclusive. I'm not elephant enough to do so but if people here could think of that, if they agree that might be effective, I would like to ask. The way we always describe it as disadvantaged people. Good. Because you're, it is, you know, disadvantaged or disparate, you know, disparities but more of disadvantaged. Because if you're soft, you talk about white supremacy that inherently we are more disadvantaged, right? So when you use the word disadvantaged, it means that it could be poor, it could be of color, it could be any reason why you are less than something else, you are disadvantaged. I don't know if you can do which one, but no. Institutional discrimination. I'm not sure that I've come up with a word but somebody has your mind, you know. I just see it as an opportunity to, I don't know, a proponent of less fail. And I think if we choose to leave that recommendation as simple pitches, it's gonna be a lot cheaper to buy a bunch of monitors than it would be, which is the point that you made. If that's where the panel wants to go to be, that seems to be simple sales, then we're writing a sales document, right? No. Thank you. My remarks would be, seems like pretty universally it plays what's the conversation about? I used it a lot, and the conversation I had after reading it, what's the operational definition? Because I Google the phrase and I can imagine it. There's a lot of disagreement. It generally, oh good, I'm gonna do it, a system by which society is organized to give preference to the concerns of whiteness. Right, and that's one of the definitions that I run, one related to the book that's planned and all right. So in terms of, this paper is a product of this committee. Whatever we decide, decide to keep it, decide not to keep it, but you can craft an operational definition specifically for purposes of this paper. Yes. If that's to one key. So that was kind of the one observation that jumped out. Okay. The other thing that I think would probably be helpful when we talk about the head collection is I'll give Karen a call and get a sample of the legislation that she was proposing. And I'll forward that. It might be worthy of inclusion in this because that's what's just like you'll read that, maybe it'll paint on the radar again. If I think that that goes in there or that, that's a good thing there. But if you could see what we do that. And the other thing that I kind of keyed on as I looked at this was not too long ago my counterparts around the country went to a symposium in DC specifically around the 21st century of reporting policing. And the number one thing that leaves out when you're talking policy, when you're talking training, when you're talking all that sort of stuff is that the agency culture eats everything. I'm sorry, say that again. The agency culture eats everything. So it's not an accountant for us to train for the best anchors that go to an agency. And one of the things that we've heard is that some of the members of the agency are, forget all that shaking when I think of it. This is the way it is in the real world. Well, that's kind of productive. But when you look at changing agency culture, it's better done in the amount of change agency culture around domestic violence response and change agency culture around a number of things, but it's a longer term goal. And usually you have to look at in terms of a couple of leadership generations which are in five, six, seven years as people move up with the future system. And when I was pleading for extra help last session, one of the things I pointed out is that we don't have the ability to craft supervisory training courses unique to the mind. And that's, you start the first line supervision and work your way out. And that's where you begin to implant those sorts of things that generate culture change. And this may not be the appropriate way for it, but it's the thing that leaked out at me because you're looking at potentially much expanded period of time. I mean, this is not a quick legislative fix. This is a cultural shift that can be done if it hasn't been done before, I've seen it. But it has to be a purposeful, driven project. Here's our end goal, culture change. So, but for whatever that's, whatever value that is, I'm gonna throw that out there. Because I see some of the stuff. Well, one of the things that kind of jumps out is the most common entry point into the system for everybody is through the local police. So if you're talking about discretion, decision-making points, and those sorts of things, that's an area that's rich with those sorts of decision-making opportunities in there. Say, I've beat those drums so long it's getting afraid of the edges, but there is an opportunity to really have an impact. Officers who are just entering the system more and more importantly, just beginning their supervisor. You probably heard me say that about five sets only, John. Yeah, I mean, I agree with that 100%, so it's just, and the funding was cut for even to just touch upon this, so that's one of those areas of concern that, if it's a priority, but the funding gets cut for equally over again, so it's. Is there any academy to train people for a supervisory role? Or is it all the discretion of the local PD? Every few years the academy puts on a finish line supervision course, but right now it's geared towards the mechanics of supervising, particularly dealing with challenged personnel and sorts of policy issues. It's normally a three-day course. I think that we're easily looking at a five-day course if not a flat, 10-day, two-week course. It's start being much more, maybe it's a workload, but I think you don't want to get any, look at, look at, instead of looking at your police department, look at the system, look at the chamber bench when you first make that decision on the online and those sorts of things. I think that we're not capturing that. It's not that we're not aware of it. It's, I don't have the money or the staff to do it, and it really creates me, I mentioned it, that the finance every year at budget time, and every year at get-to. You know, Vermont has some really tough. Thank you. I didn't write anything. You're writing though, right David? Yeah. Because I was just sort of digesting that. The fun thing, I have to, I don't know, I've tried writing something as powerful as I could at that moment and sort of used that metaphor of a household and you just have to make certain things be important and other things are not, and that's a choice. But I feel like it's all going back to that and I don't know, if anybody has any ideas about how to beef that up, that would be great because what I'm getting is to take away right now is none of this is going to work without resources, goals without saying. Right. So I'm not sure we have to put it in here in attempt to, you know, I'll kind of agree simply. I mean, I think we take it out or reduce it down because it's going to be obvious with the other parts of this. I think it's important that we need resources whether it's for training or data collection or whatever. I think it's important to speak for itself and that's my sense. Okay, all right. Thank you. So it's my first meeting because I don't know that I have a whole lot to offer on this all other than I'm being part of the group that you're aiming is at because I haven't been here and I don't know what you've been talking about. So this is my first exposure. So one thing that stuck out to me is you talk in data collection, across all state agencies as someone who's not been part of these conversations for me it would be helpful to know what data you're looking for and from whom. Well, that was part of it. And then I flashed that out. Like, Okay. Like just some places that I personally might want to see some data collected school punishment for kids that are who's going, you know, who's getting detention, who's getting suspended, who's getting kicked out of school altogether, that sort of thing. You could also get some, some data around victim services from the Vermont network. We, I bet that was my former gig. We collected perception data or self-disclosed by the client data for years and years. I don't know if they've retained it. Do I? I don't know if that's out there. And the other thing that popped into my head is just because I'm a little bit of an NPR nerd and I know we want to do, it seems like the goal of the electronic monitoring is to keep people from having to go to jail for funding. It never occurred to me that anybody other than this state would pay for electronic monitoring, but apparently it's become an economic justice issue in and of itself because folks come in and say, hey, you don't want to spend that much money on electronic monitoring. Am I going to deal for you? Our company will set up a shop here next to probation and parole. You send folks over and for the, they cost you nothing and we'll handle all of it, but it adds up costing the person 70 bucks a week. That's all. Okay. So just for clarification. It reads, we have seen a lack of standardization across the state and the data points being collected, those collecting the data and how the categories of data are defined. Thus, the panel recommends the standardization of data collection across all state agencies. If further and logically ask the resources to be allocated to assist in the collection of this data, what do you want to change? I guess for me, all state agencies is such a broad brush. There are a lot of them. Yeah, maybe I'm not, maybe I'm not able to adequately say what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to get it what you're trying to say because I want to change it. I may have to ruminate on it and email you or whatever. Okay. That's fine. All state agencies within an hour of curfew, like the criminal justice agency where you're talking about all state agencies, well, I don't know what's in your head, like, okay, you know, the Department of Transportation and all state agencies is a broad brush if you're looking at it in that way. Buildings and, yeah, like buildings and general services who live along in the academy can stay on the same area. I think it's only within the criminal criminal justice. Okay, gotcha. So maybe that's mine. Since all of us have been making some suggestions on this, I'd be happy to work with you think about what other stuff we should be adding in that. Okay. I think, you know, like the school punishment issue, you know, that really fits in with the criminal justice. Absolutely. And I think that's a really good point that we said. Thank you. We should put it in there. There actually is. I think we should still put that in there. Okay. The Civil Rights Commission, they just have to put it in there. Yeah. They've been focused on that. The school to prison, I think they're on. Yeah. Okay. She's done it. I was gonna pick on David and say, well, you know, with all the settlements that they get through the AG's office, why could they kick some of it this way to fund yourself? Instead of electric cars, you don't have enough. Half electric car, half jewellery, doesn't pay. If you could give me some money, just say to her to let us keep all of the money. Well, we would have money if we had it. It's just called reallocation. You don't have to keep it. You can do it. Oh, you guys are right. It's in the general fund. Well, anyway, that's the point. Yeah. I think, like I said, or like everybody said, it was written really well. I think we could probably back off a little bit on some of the flowery stuff. I wasn't too sure about the bay window and the wood. It's a matter of course. I don't know. I think, you know, we have to be careful about making assumptions going back to your point is that it's really a prioritization and not that there's so much, sometimes a lack of resources. It's like, if they think it's important to fund telecommuters to come to Vermont, that's a priority that they're making. If they're thinking of funding body cameras or something like that, then that's a priority. I think it's a matter of putting whatever priority that they feel that is important to solve the issue. So I don't know if we should just give them an out by saying, oh, well, we know there's lack of resources. So, oh yeah, that's why we can't do it. I mean, I don't know if we wanna kind of say, well, this has to be a priority if you want things to change or instead of saying there's lack of resources or whatever, I think they need to find the funds or if they wanna do it. I know we'd mentioned previously that we thought that the point that we were heading down was having the Human Rights Commission collect the data, but I didn't really see, is there- Oh my God, I totally forgot to hear about that one. We had all of those meetings about trying to have the Human Rights Commission do the data collection or meet the focal point that all the data went to and then they were gonna try to hire somebody to do the crunching of the numbers of the data and all that. So, I didn't know if we could add that in here. Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't- No, no, just for that, yeah. We had a lot of meetings with them coming and- That's a bull outtweigh. It just is on a different part of the computer, sorry. No, no. The data collection wasn't- It wasn't data collected. It was complaints, yeah. It was complaints. Right, but I didn't know if it might also include, you know, maybe doing the data, being the focal point for the data collection. Because one comment I wanted was, I deal a lot with legislators and a lot with legislator bills. You walk in and it's great to do some overall general things and assumptions. They just wanna say, just tell me the problem, tell me how to fix it, and then we'll have a debate about it and we'll move on. Cause they don't wanna make that decision on how to fix it because that's, they're not gonna. They're just not gonna. They're not gonna say, well, you know, this would be good if you did this. They're looking at us as a panel to make those recommendations that if you do X, Y, and Z, this will solve the problem and then they will have to debate that. But they want solutions. They don't wanna come up with them. So we, I go back to the point where we have to have concrete, like you were saying, concrete recommendations, because that's really what we're here, is we have to make those so they can say, yeah, that won't work, or yeah. But if they say it won't work, then we say, well, this is why we say it'll work and why do you say it won't? You know, that kind of thing, because there will be a debate on it. So I think we need to be specific on recommendations of what they need to do. That's fine. I'm gonna go back to the email that I sent out with this, which said, I heard that when everybody said it at whatever meeting that was, what is on here, and I, you can go back through everything I did, represents where we got. If there was, if I wrote, we said we should have a conversation about this or you all should have a conversation. It's cause there was no recommendation that was concrete. Well, and I'm not saying that. This is all great. I'm just saying, I'm just suggesting that part of what we need to do is to make some sort of concrete recommendation and why we're making those recommendations, whether it be copying it from other stuff that's been successful or whatever it is. I think another way would be nice in the data collection point is I don't know if we capture why they came into the system. Now, I know that's subjective, but was it because they were strung out on drugs and maybe they should go to a rehabilitation instead of going to court? Was it because they sold because they had big money or is it because they just like to steal? Or, I mean, we're not collecting any information from the person itself to try to find out what is there a trend? Because we know a lot of people are ending up in the criminal system because of the obvious, right? They're trying to supply that happen, but we know that only because it's so overwhelming that we know that when the state sets it up and says these people don't deserve jail, they deserve treatment. It's because we're so overwhelmed we know that that's what's causing them to come into the system. So is there a way, I don't know how or what point we collect information from that person saying kind of what your situation is? Are you habitual just because you have addiction problem or stealing or is it because of drugs? It's a one-time shot or are you coming in because I arrested you or something? I mean, I don't know. I'm just, I don't know where that point is, but we should at least make a note of how do we, can we get to that in the maybe subjective? I don't know. At least there's a baseline to start to see if there's trends. I think just a point of clarification, I think we should make sure that in the document we say director of racial equity, that I think they changed that from chief officer. I think, was it that they changed that to director of racial equity? Well, I met her the other day and she was introduced as the racial equity executive director. Okay, because over here it said like officer, it said like chief, where you have equity and diversity officer. I just wrote something. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not next business. I will talk about that. But that's basically how I had it. Other than that, it was great. I think if we can find more meat, when are we looking to get this submitted because for this legislative session, right? I'm, And who's gonna, who's gonna be this, you have to, are you gonna pick up a legislator to do that? Sponsorship or that bill? Because we should start talking to those, or exactly just coming from, I think, you know, eight times will submit it as the chair of the panel to, to just a panel vote. Well, to, to national. I mean, if we can take this report to a point where we're all firmly supportive of it, to your previous point, I think that we should have a legislative strategy for rolling this out, getting key legislators on board and presenting it potentially to joint justice oversight. And of course, you know, if we need one legislation for, we might want to be prepared for work with Ledge Council before December 15th. Yep. And I think that, you know, unless we do that, it's gonna sit on the shelves. Right, well that's why I was thinking because they usually submit it to legal overdraft that they can't give it to committee. You said December 15th. Is that right? That's the deadline for the drafting, but yeah, because the things that we don't know about. So we might want to just, after- Yeah, it's really open. It's only July now that that day, it'll happen directly. It will come. And I feel like we're on a good, I think we're on a good stretch. Because there's a lot of meeting. We just got that, opening, you know, this specific recommendation. Even if that's the ending conclusion, here are the recommendations. You know, you have all this, but a conclusion saying, here are our final recommendations and then- I have the date. Okay. Pull it. Yep. And actually do you think, reach me out to joint justice oversight kind of time and asking to, there won't be a bunch of meetings this year and asking staff to tell me anything. But it's good because they should be able to find an hour or two before us to come in. I know. So we're also going to go over there with those. Come in to say, here it is. You guys after this, you've been waiting for it, here it is. And let's talk about what- Yeah. Or you guys, since you're watching us talk about what bills you can attach stuff to, or new bills that can be written, whatever it has to be. Okay. Well, and if there's mandates anyway, they have to take it up at least whether they shall the committee or not it's a different story, but they have to at least look at it. Right? If there's a mandate, I don't know if there is. I can't remember if there's a mandate. No thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Judge Grayson. So I'll try not to repeat things that have been said, but I will say at the outset, hey, Tom, and John. Oh, it's together. No, I get it. I think it's certainly the issues that we've been discussing and the flavor of these topics. But that's what it needed to do. You know, to echo some of the other comments though, I was taken by your comment about the 1980s connotation of white supremacy, which I had not heard before, but I'm also mindful of Jeff's comments. Indeed. It's a different connotation now. And I looked at this document and I read it through quickly and I'll go through it again. I always look at what is the audience? What audience am I trying to reach? And I think if we can find some language that we're all comfortable with, other than white supremacy, we'll at least eliminate, you know, somebody reading that first paragraph. And going, I don't want to look at it. And I don't want to. And I think really that should be our goal. I agree. I think there's a way of defining it and some suggestions that have made to include the term, but a broader definition. And we won't lose people from the outset. So, okay, that was my initial thought on the first paragraph. The second one, as I said, I think it goes without saying that we're switching, but I like what the Chief said about, let's just make this a priority. And I mainly emphasize the fact that we look at what has happened just in the last couple of years in this panel, the creation of the new office. Right. And that says to me, the legislature does see this as a priority. I think we emphasize this as a priority as opposed to the lack of resources. Okay. I think that is there. On the top of page three, when we talk about better data collection, I don't dispute the need for it. What I have to understand was the lack of standardization across the state. Because each state entity, whether it's to share it or repression, state police, DCF, everybody plays different data for different reasons. There may be some common thread to it. So I'm not sure what it means to standardize that collection across all agencies because we are looking at that. Yeah. So I just think we need to understand what we mean by that. There may certainly be common data. It was a point that was raised, actually, Rebecca, you raised it. About four months ago, five months ago, about standardization of the data points. Is that, I know, I'll put you at the spot, but... I don't call standardization when in the context of D.O.C. No, and I remember where she was going. You never know what that is. Everything's situation or doubt. So I misunderstood. I wasn't using a standardize certificate. Okay, thank you. I'm just interested. But I also think... The judge just wants you to take it. We all have to... It's a very good idea. I think there's a point to that where we're trying to say, like, if the state police is looking at this person, are they being looked at the same way across, I guess, maybe that's how I understood those conversations. Okay. I'll look at that. I look at the next paragraph about pre-trial, what do you call it, pre-trial monitors, pre-trial services, or going on to the next page about what's on the monitor. They're all happening at the same point in time in the criminal justice process. I have to agree that if we have a federal system, would all be, that is a tremendous resource and it starts with the pre-trial services being embedded in the federal judiciary. It is not relying on D.O.C. or any corrections or any more pre-trial services out of the AG's office. It's a centralized office that the court controls. And it is. I would be the first to say that they can send people who are charged with offenses in Vermont, they can send them to other states without a concern because of the, we're a long ways from that. And I would like to see our pre-trial services improve by the, yeah, its resources. Right. The electronic monitoring to me is an interesting discussion. And I'm sure the numbers are very complicated but there's essentially, and the bulk of it, are the felonies. Right. And I don't see a lot of requests for electronic monitoring either to those felony cases. So it's underused now. I don't know if that's your sense Rebecca, but we just don't see that many requests for it. And I think what we really need to be careful is that we don't, as someone suggested, that we put more people on what kind of line. Don't need to be. We've got to look at the population that we're trying to target with that. So I just think we have to be careful when we talk about the sentencing and the point in the middle of it versus further, although the court rejected the play of career to hold on to it. It does. It does. Mostly because of directed knowledge. I think what I was trying to say was at that point, it's pretty much really to be safe and in defense and a better understanding of the facts as they appear at that point. We need to be completely different. I was trying to say. Page five, the discretion as a court. That was on Google all crazy. Well, what I want you to say there is we recommend the last line, a system external accountability be established. That's about four people. And I'm not sure how that's going to be. Who is to be accountable to this? Because prosecutors are subject to obligations, the judiciary is the state police. So I just wasn't sure how that would be. It would be a remiss if I didn't make one last staff or a court discretion on the version. And it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Okay, limiting it to misdemeanors. So it just takes a minute to break it up. I'm so glad we're going to break it to some committee. I'm going to send y'all a lot of my newest thoughts today. On that, on that story. Okay, thank you. Your turn. My turn. Of course I have more to think about because I'm on the list here. I know. Well, poor Jessica's. Yeah, that's true. But I will say that I've learned a lot from you about how to sit here. Well, like the first documents that I've made. Oh, I think that's not it. Yeah, I know. And it's just great. I love it. Well, it won't work that much. Yeah. We do that. So I also, I don't have anything else to add, other than to say that I share. Great. I know. Data collection is certainly one of the topics that I have to do. Standardization, which I think is me or may not mean the right way of saying it. Okay. I'm not saying it because as Judge Berson just mentioned, we all collect similar types of data. And I'm wondering if it's sort of making sure that people are collecting similar types of data and there's a way that we can report it in a standardized way. There's nothing in here about reporting. We talked about collecting data and there's nothing about what we're going to do after. Which I think is really critical to the work that we're doing. And I also think that it's not really just about having and some objective outside entity of collecting. The way I read it was like, oh, all we need is an outside entity that's going to collect the data and all of our data collection problems will be solved. And it's really not true here because every organization and department is going to also need to look at its own internal system and processes and resources. And it's slightly touched on here, but I feel like that's the bigger issue than having someone like a CRG or some other who be the people who are on the receive. Happy to be on a data collection of seven committee groups. Okay, hang on a minute. Yeah. I know we, how long, this committee has formed for quite some time, right? Like a number of years, right? It's indefinite, right? Well, well. Oh, it is. I don't know, whatever years it was, but like six or four, I can't even remember, what it was years, it wasn't like, my question is, because right now our charge is to do this, but at some point, I'm asking the question, would some of those recommendations as our panel would be reviewing some of those data or the reports and making continuous recommendations like the long-term stuff, like you're talking about. We have to do this every two years. Oh. Okay. Well, then it goes back to the long-term goals that you were talking about, of inserting data. I'm just asking you what you're talking about. I don't know if you can make it up. No, no, it's, no, it's biennial. It is. I got the sunset, so they wrote us the statute and then put it in the sunset at the very end of the process and writing the statute that didn't take into account a bunch of the, how it was going to be earlier regarding the statute. Oh, interesting. So the sunset cuts off a bunch of these other deadlines, like the biennial. Oh, report. Don't listen to a witness or a lawyer. It is something. It's soon, it's like next year, the year after. They always tell you, they always tell you they just put sunsets in front of the camera. They never, I think. Okay. But anyway, I want to ask a question. I heard what you were talking about with reporting and who's going to do anything with this. I didn't know if that's something that we are supposed to be doing at some point or not, or if it's somebody like the Racial Equity Director. I don't think that's, you're really looking short term at the requirement, so I just didn't know. I think that the data collection and report, it's important and I spend a tremendous amount of time answering other people's questions about data. So I'm kind of in this on a regular basis until I really feel like it's important for us to state that it's important, but also that I think it requires a whole lot of other expertise and other people looking at what it would take to actually put together a reporting system that per mom would feel comfortable with. And I think we would be experts who could really help with the design of that one. Okay. Yeah, so that's more potential recommendation that we can consider. Do you think the idea of pre-trial and home electronic monitoring are very intertwined and the question has been a lot that's gone on in the past few years with pre-trial having it moved around the state and in between monitors and services. And also this whole other body of work that's happening with the National Criminal Justice Reform Projects. Oh, yeah. None of that's really sort of captured in here. And it may or may not need to be, but the point I was trying to, I don't know if we should make the point that there's been a lot of work done in some of these areas that's not really captured. And some people may not know this, that all of the history and background about what we have tried and what we've been trying to do and what sort of in force. There's a way to deal with that. Okay. With electronic monitoring, again, I've spent a lot of time on this super topic. And I actually do not wonder whether or not the experience in electronic monitoring would decrease the potential. Well, that, let's take a minute. I don't wonder that. I mean, it underserved. Okay. It's not. And it's cost the state money to do that. So if it's designed differently, perhaps it could, but think about it differently. Okay. Our word, right, without the electronic monitoring, that's like to me is specific. We don't want that. It's not what we intended. And therefore, they purposefully want to hear it. There's 13 people today on the electronic monitoring. They're probably all the same people who were on it. I'm sure they are. When we could put people who are helping out on the electronic monitoring. See the reason? That's the reason. Because I was the one that kind of really kind of pushed this. And the reason I did that is because I figured people who are generally poor or disadvantaged can't afford the bail. So then they're held and then they lose their job and there's nobody to help support the family. Now this may be all subjective, but I'm just saying this is that whereas it's somebody who can afford to get bailed out and then they can go about their way, they can continue to feed their family. They don't lose their job, they can do their work and it doesn't collapse the family. And that's where I was going with it because, I mean, obviously if you put an ankle brace on somebody so you can't leave your house, well that doesn't help because my thought process was they're poor already and they can't afford bail. That this would still allow them to continue to work, going from work to home to home to work. So they can still provide it for their family and they would still be able to pay for things. Until their court date was coming up. That was the reason behind it. Now I don't know if that works the way that way now but I'm not in the juvenile justice system. But I was thinking that was where the benefit could be. But like I said, I'm just going on what I'm thinking, not what might be actual, like what you guys, now are they not doing it because nobody's thought to do this or they're just somebody that's only- Yeah, I think there's just a whole lot of nuance around the program, around the way it's designed, the way it's used to, who should be eligible for it and not eligible for it and that- I don't have that kind of know what to be telling you. The current design structure of it is not achieving what the intention was, right? Which is to release more people from the pension to reduce that corrections budget to have people be out of the hand. You know what I'm gonna ask, don't you? Yeah, and I'm happy to be part of it, all right? And this goes to everybody. Whatever you work out, just send it to me. Just email it to me and I'll smush it all back where it needs to go or where it might need to go. I think there's a lot more to it and I do think- A lot of the expansion, I think that was something we talked a lot about, about knowing your rights and how we're gonna do some community. I think there's already groups that we've had come in that I think we can push that off to, like the HRC, from all the people in the ACLU can sort of take ownership of some of that stuff, which I think this past weekend, seeing some of the immigration stuff, there's so much on social media that the ACLU is pushing out that I think that kind of falls in we can kind of pull that into that. And then along the lines of- Along those lines, just the last two weeks with the small booklet, the VBA was how I ranked the next meeting, because it's kind of like now you've turned 18 and this is- What do you mean to know? Yeah, exactly. Like senior survival. I should have brought it tonight. So I think we can just sort of tie- I think it's just a matter of we should tie the resources together at that point in there. Like, these resources are up there when you can make sure you're in the mode to the right place and people know they exist. That's really the point. Because people just don't know where to go. Okay. And I guess that also goes with the complaint part of that too, where they don't feel like they can make a complaint to the state police because they feel like we'll be covered up while they can go to these resources and they can start to get them all over. Right. That's sort of what I thought. And then also this part, which I think we call training, is that's a struggle that we go through frequently of what is actually working and how do we- This is a lot of- This is so subjective. So how do we as a state sort of look at what is gonna be what training looks like in these areas and as we sort of, as an agency, struggle through some ways to sort of figure that out. It's been challenging a lot of ways. What really is working and look at data. We haven't seen some different changes. Some areas we're happy with, but the data isn't necessarily supporting it. So sometimes it's like, what are we missing? So I don't know how we put that together. I just had some thoughts. And then the data section, again, as my other point is, there's so many things we've learned just by getting to this point and putting this together, that so many agencies, if they're just gonna fall into it and realize just the starting point of what you're capturing, how to capture it, make sure it's centralized in a way that everyone's doing it, I think, and consistent in it. So I think that is just a huge topic of whatever agency is gonna be capturing it. Is it, you know, is an apple an apple through the whole way? It doesn't mean a lot of these parts because later on in the line, produce something as we've learned as an agency that you're gonna get, you may not even know what you're about to get hit with. Because you thought you were doing something and then you completely missed the point in something of hearts and other people. So I think that data can be such a, in what people pull from it. Just the back end political sort of talking points that get put on the fuse. I don't doubt it has a, it's very powerful. Okay. So it's just something we need to do, I think. Okay. Yeah, it was probably what it creates, that sort of something. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. For sure. Great. Thank you. Jessica, last but not least, moving right along because it's like a, I'll just be a fascist. There's no public commentary. New business, which was actually a little, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Jack. Yeah, this is inside the resource, the contact area, like somebody book here somewhere. Okay. Well, this is, this is a new business, actually. Believe it or not. Some people do it before. Well, I know what choice I made. I met Susanna Smith on Saturday. Curtis Reed's organization down in Brailleboro had a meet and greet breakfast with her. And she is dynamic, energetic, really smart, thoughtful, profoundly well-spoken and eloquent. I think she will be a joy to work with. And one of the, I want you to know that she doesn't start till the 29th. I invited her tonight anyway, which she just looked, but she gave me a look that was like, I am moving here from New York. Do you know what this entails? But I was like, yeah, I kind of do. So she's not here, but she, as soon as she gets an email address, I was certainly invited her. I told her, we'd meet in August. It'd be great to see her here. She looked very enthusiastic about it. She even said to all of us who were there, I need to hear from you because I work for you. Which I thought was just really lovely. And I don't know, my heart leapt. The other thing on this stuff that I'd like everyone to think about, David, you should perk your ears up for this, is when Act 54 went through and we were created, that position didn't exist. I am in short wondering whether that should be a position that should simply be part of this panel. The Racial Equity Executive Director. I don't know what we have to do to do that if we want to do that. We certainly don't have time to have this discussion now. Please think about it for our next meeting. I will put it on the agenda. But that is something that occurred to me and it seems important. The second point is I have been in a lot of conversation with Stephanie Zuglino. She is concerned. She was emailing. I believe that legislation that requires traffic stop data collection should be revised. I would hope this could be taken up the next legislative session. In preparation for that, I'm wondering if it would be helpful for me to talk with your committee or perhaps to write a brief that describes the changes that I think need to be made and then share that with your committee given that it's going to make recommendations on criminal justice reform. So she and I went back and forth on this bunch. So I said please come because of course I think this does dovetail very neatly with what we're doing. Hope I didn't overstep. In any event, she can't come in August. She'll be out of town. She's going to come in September. It gives her time also to talk with a couple of her colleagues about exactly how those recommendations should be made. She will submit something to me in writing. I'll disseminate it to you and then she'll come and speak to us. So that's the second point. The third point gets to what you just mentioned which is the Act 54 really very specifically mentions the Vermont chapter of the ACLU yet to give an input onto what's going on here. I have not been in touch with either Chloe or JD as. Chloe's gone. Yes, who's the new Chloe? Who is the new Chloe? Yes, there's a new hire. There is a new hire. The name, I'm old, 71. I don't remember. But I think that's an innovation for any theater. I'm sorry, I really can't remember, but yes, there is. I will get you that video. Okay, because I would forward this report draft to them if that seems reasonable just to get their viewpoint in given that the statute's pretty clear. Is that it right now? Yeah, you got it. Pardon? J-Lock, is that it right? Okay. Okay. All right. That's it for new business. That happened quickly. Could I suggest that before we all break for a new meeting date in a turn, figure out quickly and formally and be who wants to work with them? Go, yes. Well, I would like to be a part of the deal. I mean, the things that we can't get into D-Place that are in our organizations have our positions at the state house every session. So we should try to get together and see if we can find any contractor. Whether it's, what is it? So I'd like to do work with you guys on bill and the monitor as pre-trial services. What is it? Oh, sentencing. We did talk about sentencing, but I'd like to approve it. I'd like to approve on sentencing, I would. Would it? How is this first suggestion for them? How about if there are any, I think folks from our state of things that they know what they should each be working on. Email any time myself which subjects you would like to be a part of and we will put together the list and then you know that back out. And so then you'll hopefully by either this week you'll have your assignment of which they do more things. You're gonna be interviewing on those things, right? Okay. I love Jess's point though. If we do want to go broader and not limit ourselves to the subject headings that you prepared ago, I'm not saying using mine as we fixed, but you know, it was extensive. So if there's something they haven't talked about, so we wanted to have included the report. Yeah, this was not meant to be prescriptive. It was just- And it was also the idea of having that, something like that, listed at the end, cool. And also, if I could, I think the point about General Justice that Jessica also mentioned. Yes. I appreciate that. So we haven't really talked about that much. And obviously there's, oh you're not to be sure, but it may be something that we don't have a lot to add to this report, may not make sense, but we are creating new subcommittees that may make sense to think about that as a separate subject. Very agree. What's going on with General Justice? Right, would it be 18, 19, the role of being a beautiful vendor? So yes, I think, and it definitely might be a lot of good suggestions on maybe creating a subcommittee, but we're looking at that more for the future. All right. So you're all going to write to David or myself about what you want to do for the subcommittee. I'm not going to micromanage them. And then we'll get back to you. Anything else? No? Okay, thank you for a very productive meeting. Anyone want to move that we adjourn? Like about 15 of you, right? Yeah. 15 of you. Anybody want a second? Sure. There it was. All in favor. Bye.