 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are gathered here this morning to take some testimony and have some committee discussion on S124 miscellaneous law enforcement amendments. We have we have a couple of witnesses with us this morning and representative Donahue I just wanted to confirm with you how long you are with us. If you have an urgent need to get out of this committee room to go to another committee room we would take you up first. I do not I'm ready to go anytime but I can also, you know, why I don't have a competing meeting. Okay, great. So in that case I would love to to ask Dr. Nesred and Longo to to join us first and a ton thank you for being with us again on on this issue we have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of evaluating the different parts of this bill and I would love to hear your thoughts on on how how you feel about the bill as it stands and any suggestions that you would make on strengthening it. Absolutely. Good morning everyone thank you. I actually can be very very brief which is refreshing I'm sure the I, I actually am very fond of the bill I thought, isn't it nice to be able to say that I'd love being able to say that. I'm very fond of it. I, what I, one of the questions I had was over the issue of process equity. The course is very critical, and certainly very, very much uppermost in the minds of members of historically minoritized communities. Given process equity and I know that there has been an attempt to get a lot of voices that are not usually heard at this hearing and I know that that has not been as successful as I think anybody had hoped. I'm spending a lot of time thinking about that. Because I think it's important still to think of process equity, even if there are people who do not actually at the moment want to be part of the process there are probably a lot of reasons why. And I would say in this case a lot of it is sort of generational trauma. So really, and it's structural right this is not about anyone personally people don't trust legislatures they don't trust law enforcement. I've had people say that you know I mean lately given the position I've just gotten with the state police. I've had people who I've known for 30 years looking at me kind of like, Okay, I don't trust you structurally but you're my friend. I don't trust you with a new thing. So it's interesting. So when I say this, I want you to bear that in mind. I think people just do not trust the legislature. And I think that this particular interaction is going to be hard for them. What I would offer here is the, you probably mean I know you know the the law enforcement modernization document the so called 10 point plan that has been going around that has been getting. And it's really like a palimpsest isn't it you know people keep writing on top of it and there are interesting meanings that get generated because people people keep writing on top of it. But it's very much a living document what I had hoped to do before this morning and didn't have the time to do was to do the exercise of taking as 124. I'm taking that document and putting them together and seeing what's there, what's not, what might go, and that was as an attempt to get that process equity going into s124. I am very sorry to say, and none of you asked me to do that. So I don't know why I'm feeling apologetic and guilty but I am. I wasn't able to take the time to do that exercise because I think it would have been wonderful in so far is that document really did get a fair amount of community feedback. I think the more was able to take it to her people in the NAACP chapter in Rotland. I don't know if it went to Stefan Gillum in Brattleboro but I would not be surprised if it did. Because we all know each other and I to Tabitha and Stefan are very close. I brought it to the racial disparities advisory panel. I have pages of commentary from that panel on that bill bill on that document. And so I think it might be useful to look at where they come together for you. I don't know. I know that's a lot of time, because I tried doing it. I was like up till three this morning. And I kind of went okay that was wasted because I didn't get anywhere. But I just want to offer you. I'm a little busy right now because I'm living on coffee. I think that that is a really useful way of getting the process equity going when people can't actually, for a variety of good reasons, be in this forum at this moment. One thing from there that I would like to pull up other than this is that notion of community involvement that is so central. And in a sense I've been speaking to already. I'd like to suggest that the oversight panels that are described in the bill need to have some kind of teeth attached. People of color, as I think everyone is aware, are often asked to serve on advisory panels or oversight panels or some kind of panel that has great optics and no teeth. And they're aware of that. And there's a great fatigue and bitterness about that kind of organization. And in S124 it talks about models being put forth for these panels. I think I got that right I've been reading so many things I think it's an S24 it may be 124 maybe in something else I'm reading. Good God, anyway, but it's in there there's something about models being put forth. And I would suggest that those models include some teeth. I would also say I understand a discomfort with that and I share it to some extent because oftentimes we get people on who don't speak the same language in some ways that we do. They don't have the same mores the same sort of cultural functioning that we may have they work very differently. That can be a daunting it can be off putting it can be all of those things. I would suggest that that is what community involvement looks like. It's not going to be neat and clean and it's not always going to be friendly. And I think we all have to just learn to get comfortable with that. That's really all I wanted to put forth to you today my failed effort and what community involvement and process equity could look like if we put these documents closer together. I appreciate that very much representative murwiki has a question for you. Good morning. Good morning. The other day at the at the joint hearing, you spoke also about having some teeth, can you be more specific of what you mean by that? I can. I, it is one. Here's an example. Let me give an example. Let's say there is a law enforcement officer who is accused of some sort of malfeasance. If this community body can simply comment on this and nothing more. The document can tell stories, for instance, but has no part in actual disciplining. Or indeed, the certification that advisory function ends up feeling a bit optic and not particularly real. That's what I'm talking about that sort of situation to give the community teeth in this instance to give them an actual voice in in the situation that I'm proposing, hypothetically, around discipline around even as far as the certification actually gives them the kind of voice that frankly we've all been looking for for a very, very long time. Does that help. Thank you. Yes, you're welcome. How Colston. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning. Just to follow up with what Mike shared. Are you aware of any models out there in communities that have these kinds of oversight responsibilities that have action related to it versus advisory. I am working on that right now I'm in touch with a bunch of people, including one very interesting model from Baltimore, and I'm looking at that further right now and I will hopefully have more information on that as soon as I get some sleep. I'm sorry, I'm a little punchy, but I, that is one place I wanted to go. Yes. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. I saw Rob LaClaire's hand, but it has gone down. Well, I took it down so I wouldn't forget, but if you are calling on me, Madam Chair, the good idea to leave it up until I call on you because I might forget that I saw it. Rob. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Doctor. How are you? Fine. Thank you. You know, you're, you're raising a very interesting point. I guess somewhat unfortunately at a very appropriate time, because what's going on up in Burlington, I think would be a perfect example of what you're talking about. If you had the ability to sort of weigh in on things right now, where they are, what would be a couple steps forward in your opinion that could help alleviate that situation going on up there? I mean, it seems like that you have a group of folks up there that are very committed to, you know, having these law enforcement officers removed. However, all the processes and procedures that have been in place are in place would indicate something differently. How would we bridge that gap, you think? That is a question that will not fit into a sound bite. The answer to which will not. It's excellent. I feel like anything I'm going to say is so woefully inadequate that it's concerning that it will go on the record, but it sounds jujune, frankly, where my mind first went and I'll just put it forth as jujune as it may be. There is an absolute inability at this point for people to sit down in a room in any way that is facilitated. And facilitation is key here because reactive responses are absolutely, I just think they're destructive at this point. There is not a lot of listening going on. I don't think that that's also both in both directions, but it may well be. I think I'm going to just put it out there, that there's some kind of seriously facilitated listening, and I mean that very formally. That needs to take place. I would also go so far as to say I think that needs to happen statewide. I think what's going on in Burlington is simmering and other locales around the state. There needs to be some serious facilitated listening as a starting point. I was very impressed by and I have brought this up over and over again I sound like a broken record and to say that makes me sound like I'm very old which I guess I am since no one has records anymore but the situation with Representative Morris happened and the Attorney General decided to put together a group, a series of fora around the state where people listened. I mean there were some real serious structural considerations here. He spoke hardly at all. He really was community members speaking law enforcement officers didn't speak. They, there were rules about how they could speak and when they could speak we. I did this along with Curtis read of the Vermont partnership for fairness and diversity and also with Tabitha Moore of the Rotland NAACP and we all ended up just sort of. The facilitator of record but really all three of us were doing it, and it really fell into a spot where people were able to speak I am still hearing from people a year later. From that exercise. We're not done because of the pandemic but I think something like that has to be a starting point. And it needs to be that formal. Excellent points. Thank you very much. Hooper. Yes, excellent points. Am I unmuted yes. Thank you. Keeping in mind it as I recently admitted English is not my primary language. My front porch forum is sort of alive these days because living in the new north end. You have to go down past the police station to get into town unless you take a root around, and you have to do that intentionally. And a lot of people are now saying, I don't derive that way anymore I don't want to see that anymore it's not helping anymore. It comes to the point that you've made a couple of times in my mind about what you mean when you say community in terms of participation, and in terms of an avenue for resolving the problem. People have said to me those people don't represent me. And when you use the word broadly in community, it can be either a narrow community or the broad community as a whole. How do we get the broad community to be inclusive as you just said, effectively the police who are part of the community were kind of eliminated from the last thing. And how do we not focus it on such a narrow community that people feel excluded. Excellent, an excellent point. I would say that from the outset that would be one of the things that would be a fundamental question informing these kind of the series of fora would be how do we put something together like that, I would suggest it would mean that each person gets X amount of time to speak that after they speak, there are no responses allowed to it, something like that. This is coming off the cuff representative I'm like, you know this is something that really requires a far more dedicated work route to sit and talk to, but that would be that would be something off the top of my head that would start. I feel that that what they say is not immediately fodder for an attack. May I, and I think we're all coming off the cuff because it's either an issue that we've been intentionally avoiding intentionally unaware of, or ill prepared to address directly. But there is so much distrust. Yes, getting to that point is very difficult. Absolutely. And that's also why I'm sort of really getting obsessive about how you structure something like this. That is the sort of thing as I'm sure you're well aware that mediators do that they spend an enormous amount of time structuring events like this, precisely to allow people who feel marginalized in any way. It really mediators who are, you know, professional mediators do a lot of how do we put the ground rules together so that the community is as broadly defined as it can possibly be. And I would suggest that that's where things need to start. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to build on what he can just shared about the listening process. I really believe it should be formalized as a truth and reconciliation commission that should be statewide that should have state partners and be fully funded to be effective. And to represent of the Claire's question. I think what we're experiencing in Burlington is just the tip of the iceberg in response to those three officers. The 90% of the iceberg we don't see is a flawed process for holding officers accountable. That's what's broken. So, if we give, if we just give default to well the process says they're exonerated. It's a broken process. And that's where the real work needs to be done. And I think an oversight process of citizens can offer an incredible wisdom and just give it shape so that it's effective and that officers act in a responsible way. So, this is an interrepresented Hooper's point about community and people diverting because you know that doesn't speak to them. Well that speaks to white people feeling comfortable. And we're going to maintain that we're not going to change. This is an uncomfortable issue. And if white folks can't go there, then we'll protest until, you know, whatever. It's just the nature of where we are today. And as I've said to my colleagues before. Black and brown people are not asking for change. We are demanding change. And it's not going to be comfortable and status quo anymore. Thank you. And an interesting point to that, if I may also piggyback on your piggybacking is this happened in Japan. I have a very, well, few close friends who are of Korean descent, who live in Tokyo. And they went through a very, they went through reparations. It didn't work. It absolutely didn't work, because now, when people who are of Korean descent start talking about racism. And a lot of people look and go, you got your money, what are you still talking about. And if anyone thinks that's not going to happen in the United States. I just start laughing because I'm like, oh, please, seriously. I mean, you know, this is a country in which everything is fungible. Well, I think the truth and reconciliation model is absolutely where we need to go. And one of the things that certainly happened in South Africa, when that was implemented was a tremendous amount of discussion about discomfort. That's where things started everybody like went. Hi, this isn't going to be fun. Fun will happen later, actually, when we get to moments of actual understanding, but this is not going to start easily. You're not going to like want to give hugs. It's just that you so get that off the table. Right. Let's just get that off the table. It's going to be uncomfortable, accept it. And even saying that was a tremendous step forward in getting that process going. And I just, I represent it's just so wonderful to hear someone say that because I really feel like that is exactly where we need to go not merely as a state but as a nation. We're blessed here that we're small enough that we can do it as a state. Yes, I appreciate some of the many advantages of having a small state where we know our neighbors and where, you know, when, when you're in the snow bank in the dead of night in January, you know any one of your neighbors is going to come and help you out so Yeah. Thank you for that quickie has his hand up. Thank you, madam speaker and I'm continuing in this thread that's going and I appreciate what Representative Colson shared. My friend speaks my mind when he talks about a formal structure. What I'd like to do right now is is share a quote from some reading I did recently that just jumped off the page and I think speaks to this moment it's from Brené Brown, and a researcher who lives in Houston. He or she who chooses comfort over courage and facilitating real conversations in towns and cities and areas you need it. When you choose your own comfort over trying to bring people together, and you're a leader, either a civic or a faith leader, your days of relevance are numbered. Representative, do you have my email address? Could you send that to me please? Thank you. I really, I need that. Thank you. That's exactly it. Bob Hooper. Thank you. I don't know where we are in the piggyback stage, but I'll piggyback on how also 15th removed. How you mentioned the word comfort and I think we do it a disservice if we don't mention fear also. That seems to be a driver for a lot of people. And if we all stood up and turned around and look at the thing we're sitting in. The chairs are the things that create the change because there is nothing that can happen in contract that can supersede the law. So change exists here. The potential for anyway. Committee members. We are having a sort of an open discussion but also asking a ton questions as we go. And I would like to invite and Donahue to, to come into this conversation. I know that she's been listening and I have seen occasional nods of agreement with some of the, some of the words that folks have said so. And I would love for you to share your thoughts with us in a ton if you can stick around. That would be great as well because I think we're, we're enjoying the, the, the dialogue here and getting a lot of good information out of it. So welcome and Donahue. Yes, it's, it's a great conversation and what it brings to mind for me, which I think is reflected in a lot of what this bill is trying to do is, you know, this is, this is far beyond a training issue. This is really, this really gets to culture on all levels culture within the police but on all levels. I actually had a pretty to me stunning interaction with my local police chief just about a week ago. And part of the reason it was stunning is it didn't have anything to do with implicit bias that overlay would have just, you know, kind of really blown things off but I was involved purely as a support person for a constituent who had had a very personally distressing interaction with the police from the perspective of being a domestic abuse victim. And so we met with the chief who said, you know, I've got an open door if there are problems, talk with me. And the bottom line was, he acknowledged that the officer in question had a very poor ability to interact well with with people with victims with community members, but this officer is like top notch investigator so very valuable to the department. What he said then was, you know, when someone's gotten to be 35 years old, you know, you really can't change who they are, or their personality. This officer didn't break any policies. There isn't anything I can do as the supervisor for this officer. It's, it's who this person is, it's just the way they are. And this officer in fact has been involved in an earlier incident in Northfield that did involve bias and that's been very problematic in the community and, and I think the response was similar with that individual so you know the bottom line of the culture within our police departments and the need for that citizen involvement in helping not just to look at things that happen but to have an involved role in what are our expectations for change. You know this this is not acceptable to say well it's the way the person is we can't change them. So, so it's been a great discussion to be able to hear. And of course, I come at it also recognizing how, how deeply this affects the issues of interactions in the psychiatric survivor mental health community, in terms of the bias and discrimination that happens in addressing those issues. Thank you and I appreciate you bringing that story to the forefront because if we think of other public employees who interact with us. You wouldn't expect that kind of a dismissive statement about a school teacher or a firefighter or a snowplow driver. And so the strange and dangerous lack of accountability oversight responsibility when it when we're talking about a law enforcement officer is is very troubling. And I think the point about the ability to listen in here is really critical because this victim also had concerns about how she was dealt with by the chief who had arrived on the scene. And, and the chief, you know, was saying, you know I want to be a listening person I'm listening response was to explain why he said what he said to her. He was completely unable to understand that what he needed to recognize and how he needed to respond was to say, you know, this is why I said what I said, I didn't realize you would hear it that way and really sorry that it had that impact on you. He wasn't remotely able to go there or understand the need to say that. So she was left of course feeling, you know, very dismissed and hearing and listening are two different things. Madam chair, if I may just a couple more comments about where I think things might want to go, given that we're talking about conversation. When Tabitha Moore in a meeting that we were having around those the 10 point plan that I've mentioned this morning came back with con with comments from her constituency. It's interesting that there were three items, not on that plan, and also not in S124 that communities of color minoritized communities in general, frankly. The way that is being a member of the neurodivergent community as well. Didn't feel were considered and felt like they hurt people didn't even want to have a conversation about the 10 points until these other three things were covered. And they were complex, and they're awkward. They are the role of unions. They are the role of funding. And of course that's defined about 12 billion different ways. And qualified immunity. What was interesting when this discussion happened was that everybody who likes one another who was on this, I want to say in this meeting but of course I mean in whatever it is we're doing right now. Even though we haven't seen each other at about a year. Everybody kind of quietly went to their corner. And being an anthropologist of sorts I went. Now isn't this interesting that we're all going to our corners. What this says to me is this is where the rubber meets the road. So, what was interesting was the law enforcement officers were very clear, legally, we cannot even discuss unions. We legally cannot have that conversation right now, because of collective bargaining. I thought that was fascinating I said isn't this interesting. This is where people are saying we need to go. And you can't even go there and it has nothing to do with your individual agency. That's fascinating. So, what I keep saying, and have really been saying since I don't even know when but certainly since May 25 is some discussion needs to happen around those three issues. And these two will be uncomfortable discussions. As law enforcement officers say all the time, and I have to admit and I will openly say this, I understand what they're saying, they can't do their jobs without qualified immunity. What would be the impulse. If your house may go. And maybe it's not even because you actually did something that's ethically questionable. We live in a very litigious society. Without there being some kind of massive tort reform. That's a crazy proposition. But here's also the issue. I don't think most people out there know what a tort is. So, there's a lot of work to be done here. While I love a lot of what's in S24 while I love a lot of what's in the 10 point plan as I and as I've said to you this morning, I'd love somebody to have hours and lots of coffee to like put them together and see what comes up. There are three things that are not here. So historically minoritized communities think are essential for this conversation. I am not someone who's going to excoriate unions. I, I just won't I think that protecting blue collar people in particular is extraordinarily important in the sculpture. On the other hand, it's not a one or a zero. I think situations can also arise where those same self same organizations can cover sorts of various sorts of malfeasance and we've seen that. So that discussion needs to happen and anything that's going to go along with truth and reconciliation. You're going to have to go through at least those three issues. And so as I say, as I think S124 and that 10 point plan are, they are incomplete. And for some people, they're even beside the point. So that's not a very good point. And one that I've gone back and forth about quite a bit as I, you know, through the course of the three public hearings that we had we heard a number of a number of suggestions of things that needed that the folks feel needed to happen. You know, it is, it is a limitation of a citizen legislature that we, we can't do the, you know, it takes a tremendous amount of planning and ramp up time to do the whole package all at once. Yeah, we can in ordinary times, much more systematically, you know, take, take one bill that has a chunk of concepts in it and move that through the process. And then come back with another. And then there's a layered on top of the normal citizen legislature challenges, there's the fact that we're in COVID times and and so in some ways this the fact that we're here in session today is is a bonus because ordinarily we would have adjourned in May. The energy of this moment, which is rightfully demanding reform would be focused on preparing for bills to be introduced in January and and trying to build coalitions of people who can come together and push reforms in January. So, you know, we're at this moment where we have only a few small pieces that we can do. But I think many of us recognize the interconnectedness of a lot of these issues. And perhaps most foundationally this truth and reconciliation process that needs to have its own time and consideration in front of a citizen legislature in order to be put in place in a way that really works here. If, if we had a magic wand we might cause these things to come into being all, you know, all at once, but, but we don't and we are a citizen legislature and most of us are trying desperately to juggle our, our day jobs, alongside being in session in September, which is a very odd sort of dynamic. Yeah. So it leaves us with a finite, a finite piece of work in front of us and I just, you know, I only say this to point out. Although I, I hope that folks know this already that this isn't the only this bill that we have in front of us isn't the only thing that we need to do in fact. You know, police reform as a, as a category is not the only reform we need to do. And so I hope that folks will continue to engage with us and continue to reach out and, and share their thoughts with members of this committee and their own house members and senators in Vermont, because I really do believe that that those affected officials across the political spectrum want to get this right for our communities. And Donahue, did you have any, any specific observations about the about any sections of 124 that you wanted to share with us today. I did I actually I have a narrow specific ask I have a generic generic thing I wanted to say about it and and then a narrow ask. So, I mean the generic thing is I think these are all crucial issues obviously and the one thing, sort of to remind everyone three years ago we did pass a bill creating the mental health crisis response commission, which had an explicit charge to look at deaths or serious bodily injury and come out of come out with recommendations about ways to prevent those things. It's done its first report on the on the Phil Brennan shooting. And if you haven't already I strongly recommend that you hear from the chair of the commission. And the response in terms of what ways the bill doesn't doesn't get it some of the things that the commission would recommend towards reforms. You know, including making sure that we include the issues around mental health are really important the bill. I'd be happy to work, you know, individually with anybody on pieces of the language. You know, almost at least half of our deaths and more in the last of the huge increased in the last couple of years have all related to a person in a mental health crisis. So I think ask, it's one of those things like, you know, when somebody says something and five minutes later you say, Oh, I had the perfect comeback. Why didn't I think of it on the spot. So you're, you would be well, it would be a good question for you to ask me, why didn't you think of suggesting this in June. You passed a bill in June we passed a bill act 147 and it included a component about if data isn't turned in that's required that will affect your ability to get funding from the state. And there is another piece of data that is required from law enforcement that I think has been problematic as to whether that is occurring. I would love to see a little amendment that added that statutory requirement to the language that you created about budgets. I did send in for you you have a copy that shows the bill. The Mental Health Crisis Response Commission statute requires law enforcement to report within 60 days, any interaction that has resulted in death or serious bodily injury. And the last time I talked to the Attorney General's office. They did not feel that that was really happening. I don't think there had been a single report of a serious bodily injury. The case in the three years since and it's hard to imagine there haven't been any at all. So it would be a simple piece of language that I've shown on the handout they're adding to act 147 language. And that stands with race data reporting requirements set forth in 20 vsa 2366 and with the death or serious bodily injury reporting requirements set forth in 18 vsa 7257 a great I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sharing your thoughts and if you have any other aha moments. You know where to find us. We're right down the hall. Committee members any other questions for representative Donahue or Dr. Nuss read in Longo. Because at this point I would like to switch gears and invite Betsy and to to share some some information with us to help us put the the reform components that are in this bill and and that we have been talking about sort of into the context of of what is currently in statute and a ton and and you're welcome to stay and listen if you like. And we'll turn it over to Betsy and for for one of her wonderful tutorials. Thank you. Hello and thank you. Good morning Betsy and Rask legislative council and thanks for those witnesses testifying so far. I did want to pick up on one thing that Dr. Nuss read in log long ago was mentioning about the three issues just to follow up on that for the role of unions, which really is more addressing a labor or employment issue and that is not that is not contained in the four point out one thing in regard to current law in the council chapter about how law enforcement agencies do have to have a degree of civilian oversight which does go to an employer employee issue. But that's current law. So we'll circle back to that the funding. This bill does not address funding on the state level or municipal level. And then the qualifying of unity I think you've been working with Bryn from more of a judiciary issue to address those issues I'm just trying to lay out where things are right now. And then we'll talk more about what this bill is currently set up to do in regard to law enforcement. It's more currently focused on the state's professional regulation of law enforcement officers, what goes into their training, what an officer has to do to get certified, but then also the state's regulation of law for law enforcement officers on a statewide level, and enforcing the statewide standards of unprofessional conduct that are currently set forth in the law. It does address the entity the criminal justice training council that has the authority over training and certification and professional discipline on an officer's certification statewide. One thing I would mention as we'll go through the contents of the bill is that one of the proposals in the bill is to address who are the members of the council who have the overall oversight of the training and certification standards, and the decision making in regard to disciplining an officer's certification that enables an officer to practice as a law enforcement officer, because that the bill does propose to change the entities who have that overall oversight authority on the statewide level. Let's go back to the first issue in regard to more of the employer employment relationship. And this relates to civilian oversight. I will note now in current law pursuant to act 56 which set really beefed up the professional regulation of law enforcement officers. Act 56 does generally provide and our law currently provides that when there is a complaint about an officer's conduct alleged unprofessional conduct. Generally, it's the law enforcement officers own agency that conducts an investigation and submits an investigative report to the council for the council to consider whether to take action against the officer certification so that would impact where the officer can practice anywhere in the state. Part of the current laws process for an agency to investigate alleged unprofessional conduct by one of the agency's officers is that the agency has to conduct what's defined as a valid investigation. And there are standards for a valid investigation. And one of the standards is that the agency has to have what's called an effective internal affairs program, which is also a defined term, and an effective internal affairs program does contain different criteria, and one of them is civilian review. And that's defined in statute in 20 BSA to 401 subdivision for E civilian review is currently defined as a requirement for the agency. To provide for review of officer discipline by civilians, which may be a select board or other elected or appointed body, at least for the conduct required to be reported to the council under the council's unprofessional conduct sub chapter. And perhaps as this committee is considering this bill and pursuing these issues in the bill. One of the things perhaps you could take testimony on is what this is looking like in practice, and how agencies are implementing this requirement to have civilian review. Understanding that there are differences among the municipalities, for example, of how civilians get to participate in that review of the discipline that the agency might impose on the officer. That's just something to hold in mind for further discussion in this committee, beyond that current law effective internal affairs program. Another thing that is in current law under the council is the requirement for the council to have what's called a council advisory committee. This is set forth in current law and 20 BSA 2410. This is a five member committee. It's currently structured as advisory only, but it is to be composed of five individuals appointed by the governor. And four of those members are required to be public members who don't have a law enforcement connection and one of retired law enforcement officer. And that council advisory committee was created in law to provide advice to the council regarding its duties in regulating officers professional conduct. But it is advisory. One of the things that S 124 would do, and we can, we'll look further at this in this draft strike all that we have going for committee discussion is that it would require on page 14 of that annotated strike all that I put together for you. A specific requirement that when an agency does provide its investigative report and supporting documents to the council, after the agency has investigated alleged unprofessional conduct of an officer. And a specific requirement for the council to provide a copy of that investigative report to the council advisory committee and a requirement for the council to recommend any appropriate action to take in regard to the law enforcement officer. That is at least one element of further civilian review of alleged unprofessional conduct, but noted is still advisory only but giving advice to the council. Overall, as the council is the adjudicating body of charges of an officer's unprofessional conduct. That third element, a third issue relating to civilian oversight is the council membership itself as I mentioned, and S 124 as past the Senate would amend the council membership to include more non law enforcement related individuals as members of the council, including adding the commissioner of mental health as a member of the council, the executive director of racial equity and also specific BLCT appointment. But they would have I more I would have think as to law enforcement municipal law enforcement agencies. So, an individual appointed by the director first of the Center for Crime Victim Services, the executive person appointed by the executive director of the Human Rights Commission. A person appointed by the executive director of the Vermont network against domestic domestic and sexual violence, and then three public members appointed by the governor who don't have a law enforcement connection. The members would be added to the current criminal justice training council, which again is established to set the statewide standards for all law enforcement officers training certification and the regulation of their professional conduct. You can see the council is the entity that if an officer is charged with violating the statewide standards of unprofessional conduct. That's the body that adjudicates those charges and determines whether unprofessional professional conduct occurred. And if so, the discipline to impose on an officer's certification which is the officer's authority to practice as an officer anywhere in this state. And that disciplinary authority could include suspension or revocation of an officer certification to practice. John Gannon has a question. Thank you. Betsy and if you know it with these proposed amendments with respect to the council what would be the balance on the council between law enforcement and non law enforcement. All right, I don't have the numbers offhand the council would be going from 12 members to 20 but I can count them out now. Commissioner public safety will call that law enforcement related. Commissioner of corrections, they don't have law enforcement officers but more on the justice side. Commissioner of motor vehicles, they have law enforcement officers, fish and wildlife, they have the game wardens who are law enforcement officers. They have the same level of health. So I would put that in the opposite category. The AG, where do you want to put the AG more law enforcement related as the chief law enforcement officer. The executive director of the department of states attorneys and sheriffs again a law enforcement related position that's six executive director of racial equity and put that as to on the more public side. Association appointee law enforcement police association appointee law enforcement. Chiefs of police association law enforcement sheriffs association law enforcement that's 10 VSE a appointee who is a law enforcement officer that's 11. The LCT. Where would you put them. I think they have more. I don't know what their perspective I can't speak for them but whether they would have more of a perspective of municipal law enforcement agencies I don't know where where would you put them. I would predict that they might have a municipal law enforcement officer appointed to that. Yeah, it's actually an employee of the LCT but they do have a focus on municipal affairs which I would infer is more law enforcement related. We can call them 12 for now executive director of crime victim services I put them on the non law enforcement side that's three. Someone appointed by Human Rights Commission that's for appointed appointed by the executive director of network against domestic and sexual violence I'd call that five, and then the three public members is eight. So, if we're counting correctly that's eight non law enforcement to 12 law enforcement related. Thank you. This is actually related to civilian oversight that the doctor referenced in s124 currently. There is a requirement in multiple reports back with recommendations in regard to law enforcement. There is a specific and this is will get into this in the annotated strike all but this is starting on there is a requirement for the office of attorney general to consult with a variety of stakeholders and interested parties to recommend one or more models of civilian oversight of law enforcement. So that that could be addressed. In the future based on what those recommendations are the AG's office did come to testify in Senate gov ops about potential models or different structures of models of civilian oversight so this bill would require further review and recommendation on that issue. And then, relatedly, there is more report back about people being able to make if whether there should be a certain place that individual should be able to make complaints in regard to law enforcement alleged unprofessional conduct. Right now the two main resources are the law enforcement agency itself and the council, at least as far as it goes to alleged unprofessional conduct provisions. That's just kind of this risk, kind of giving a lay of the land in regard to those issues you've discussed so far in regard to civilian oversight. A pause here is, are there any questions on that so far. Again, and this isn't really a question just a comment seems with respect to models of civilian oversight we're again handing law enforcement, i.e. the general responsibility for identifying those models. And the same with respect to reporting allegations of law enforcement misconduct. So I just make that comment. Good point. Marsha Gardner. I'd just like to suggest that we review the members of the criminal justice training council to see if we could create perhaps more balance on that council or at least have that discussion. Can we create a 1010 balance on that council. Thanks Marsha. Then on this note in regard to representative Donahue's proposed amendment actually if there's a similar provision. In S124 in regard to a law enforcement agency needing to be in compliance with state policies in order to be able to enjoy the services of the council their training. For example, so that sounded similar to what represent Donahue brought up about amending as the provisions of S219 now enacted in the law in regard to a law enforcement agency getting state resources as long as they're in compliance with state policy so I'll just mention that they seem related to those two issues similar. Marsha. Thank you. Speaking of these funds that are available for different law enforcement agencies around the state. I've been told, and I don't know if this is true, but I've been told that these funds are limited. And that they, for the most part, go to the larger agencies around the state and that they run out quite quickly. So I think I'd like to hear more about those funds and you know, are there enough funds to really create some kind of incentive there. So let's talk about about how we how we get the right voices into to to help us understand the way that dynamic is working. So you and I and Andrea can figure out who we invite Bob Hooper. At that point, I don't know the answer to this but the federal stuff that comes in tanks and missiles and everything else does that go through this particular type of allocation screen or is that a different application process that maybe we might want to look at. That's a good question. It seems related to what a representative Gardner just brought up. So you're wanting to pursue that the secretary of administration or someone under the secretary could testify in regard to how that grant that granting program works. So just looking at your the provisions of the enacted as 219 and that amendment to the requirement that the secretary of administration or designee have to review grants from the age from an agency of the state to a local law enforcement agency to inch and review that grant prior to granting it to the agency to ensure that the agency is in compliance with state policies. So, Mr. Nussred and Longo the R DAP did some work on this recently. Yes, Madam chair, we were asked to testify earlier in the summer about what I sort of call the funding for data exchange that, you know, you have to have your as a municipal law enforcement agency have the last 6 months of your race data together before the funding you know these grants would come through one issue that came up over and over again on the R DAP and I have to say I'm behind is the fact that it reinforces the idea that you basically have to have money to get money. So we're talking about how, you know, VSP does this I'm very familiar as the well now co director of fair and impartial policing and community affairs for the agency. I know how that happens. Betty Wheeler does this. She does this because she finds it fun. You know, there are people who find stats enjoyable. She's one of them, but she really this is a sideline for her, we would really be lost if Betty didn't just enjoy doing it and wasn't brilliant at it. The use that as a gold standard is somewhat concerning. Quite right that the larger agencies get the money. They've got the people who can do it. The concern on this part of the R DAP was what do we do with the other, what, 70 agencies around the state that have four people. It's a very easy process collecting and collating this data, and certainly doing it accurately the first few years of this initiative for the VSP were disastrous. We were very concerned on the R DAP that this was coming through with out any sense of funding these smaller agencies to give them help in actually being able to do what the statute was requiring them to do. That is an important point and let's keep looking at this. So Betsy Ann, we will come back to you now, unless committee members want to dive in with a question. Well, Madam Chair, if it makes sense, perhaps one thing that we could look at is this draft strike all that is just keeping track of your conversations to date. It's posted on your website. Thank you, Andrea. Let's see how it's listed. It's the HGO amendment annotated and just to note, so this is just a draft for committee discussion. It contains the technical corrections that you discussed to date. And some of those technical corrections are just the using the term law enforcement applicant instead of recruit. Also, the eliminating language that duplicates what you the General Assembly already enacted in S 2 19 as was enacted. And then also a technical correction was in regard to clarifying that requirement for following the body camera policy being right now, if the agency uses body cameras. So it includes those technical corrections. It also just points out some of the similarities with 2018 S 273, which passed both bodies but was vetoed. Which and if I'm recalling correctly it was due in part to the membership the proposed membership of the council at that time. And then also pointing out some of the similarities with S 2 19. And actually in at least one place it looks like there needs to be some harmonization between the two in regard to who has ultimate authority to set the body camera policy standards. So if members are, is it okay if members pull up the draft on their own so we don't do screen share together. Do folks have a second device nearby so they can grab the annotated draft. All right, so just again putting this together as just a running tab of your potential amendments that you've discussed today. And it's that draft 1.1 annotated with the 911 date. Section one, there's your potential technical correction. This would use the term law enforcement applicants instead of recruit how statute currently refers to recruits. And just also helping to clarify that law enforcement applicants have to go through basic training that's the initial training that they must complete in order to get initially certified as a law enforcement officer by the council. So once certified officers have to take in service training. Then moving on a section to amends the council membership as we were discussing. So it would be going from a 12 member council to a 20 member council. And you can see the members that would be added. Just note, there's a separate statute that provides that each council member may appoint a designee to serve in their place. So you can see at the top of page two where it currently says under current law that the commissioners serve on the council. It's possible that a commissioner can appoint a designee to serve in the commissioner stead on the council. But the first proposal is to add the commissioner of health to the council membership. The second proposal is to add the executive director of the department of state's attorneys and sheriffs. And then also the executive director of racial equity. And then you can see that the bill goes down to eliminating the current five members appointed by the governor. You can see the current law language on 12 provides that the governor's appointees provide a broad representation of all aspects of law enforcement and the public in Vermont on the council and the governor needs to solicit recommendations from certain entities. Instead of those five members generally the the bill would specify people in place of those five members member of the chiefs of police association. The sheriffs association just to note, there are people who might already be representing the chiefs of police association the sheriff's association on the council through the governor's appointment. But this would specify that these instead that these people. These will be representatives on the council. In the next three, a law enforcement officer appointed by the president of the VSE a an employee of the LCT appointed by the LCT's executive director. An individual appointed by the executive director of the Center for Crime Victim Services. An individual appointed by the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, so not the executive director herself but someone appointed by her. An individual appointed by the executive director of the network against domestic and sexual violence. And then three public members appointed by the governor who cannot be a law enforcement officer or have spouse parent child or sibling who is one, or current legislators, employed in the criminal justice system. So that's how that council membership is proposed to change. I'm down at the bottom it provides and it's essentially see it provides specifically that the public members are entitled to receive per diem compensation. The 32 vs a 1010 the standard $50 per diem, but that all members are entitled to receive reimbursement of expenses and that is also the standard on the 32 vs a 1010 that's our standard board member per diem statute that members generally get to get reimbursed for their expenses. And that would come from monies appropriated to the council. And that would do the similar thing that what s 273 from last by any would have done is just would say if you're an existing member of the council, and under this new membership, you would still get to participate and be a member of the council then you could serve out the remainder of your existing term length. So does that effectively mean that the council in, in theory going to 20 could for a short period of time have 22 or 24 members. No, it's saying that if under the new membership if you're already serving for example as a governor appointee. As a representative of the sheriff's association and now the sheriff's association gets to make an appointment instead of that governor appointee and you're the they appoint you again. So you get just to continue to serve out your term. And I think the idea is that you don't have terms automatically start over so that all the new terms don't expire at once. So you can kind of have some continuity in the membership of the council. So it's not a brand new turnover. Yeah. It's a new membership. Just as a reminder. This bill gets into what the council's powers are in setting the training for officers and the requirement that the council would have to adopt rules to identify and implement alternate routes to certification. So that's why we're training at the police academy because it really is focused on police academy training, which is 16 week program if you want to be a level three officer where there is Monday through Friday overnight stays required. And so there was that was part of the discussion on the senate side is whether there should be more options to get trained to become certified as an officer. So the language there online 14 of page four is the same as what would have been enacted in S273. And related to this is the requirement for the council to offer instructions for officers in different areas of the state and strive to officer offer non overnight courses when available, one possible. And just continuing on to page four. There's the reminder about the requirement for the council to structure its programs so that a level two certified officer can get level three certification without having to start the certification process over again, which is the current procedure. In order to enable a person to go from level two to level three with some portfolio experience or that college level examination program that clap testing. And that was similar to what was in S273. And there's a required report back on how the council is doing in implementing those provisions in section six. And page seven in sub B provides a rulemaking deadline for those alternate routes to certification. So here in six a I looked back I was so I was I reviewed S2 19 as enacted to see whether there were similarities in the bills or even overlap. So, as we were discussing earlier S2 19 has that language about someone who's getting a state grant a law enforcement agency or constable that's getting a state grant has to be in compliance with the race data reporting requirements. And this language in S124 is similar, but not the same in that this language requires an agency to be in compliance with state. The policy the requirement to collect roadside stop data. And it says also to adopt follower or enforce any policy under this chapter in order to get use council services like training at the academy. It's similar but different. It's still a goal of, of requiring an agency compliance with policies. Some of the policies that are in the council chapter are the requirement to have a fair and impartial policing policy. And then also if your agency will use tasers electronic control devices there's also a separate policy that a person officer must be in compliance with. And this is where if you will pursue the proposal that represent Donnie made. That's a separate policy that lives outside of the council chapter. In regard to that title 18 requirement for agencies to report when a law enforcement officers interacted with a person that may be in a mental health crisis. And to report interactions that may have resulted in death or serious bodily injury. So if you want to pursue that and both you could pursue it in one or both places. It seemed similar on page eight this was more of a technical correction to bring statute up to speed with what's already happening in practice is which is that agencies can get approved by the council to offer training to officers of another agency and the s 273 would have done the same thing. Section eight contains that new requirement for a potential hiring agency to contact an officer's current agency and require that current agency to disclose its analysis of the officers performance there. And that's already requirement. If an officer is not employed at an agency there's a requirement for the potential hiring agency to contact the former one. So this is adding in language about contacting the current one if an officer still there. So on the top of page 10 that section nine contained a provision to state explicitly that that duty to disclose is not required if there's a bond binding non disclosure agreement prohibiting that disclosure that was executed prior to the effective contractual labor issues. I don't know how how many non disclosure agreements there might be in that regard but that was also the language that was used when this requirement was first enacted for agencies to contact the former agency. That seems an important aspect of this landscape for us to understand a little more so if we could dig into that a bit more next week that would be helpful. I think it would potential witnesses. Maybe that could would be some information that VLCT could provide for this committee about those types of agreements or I'm not sure who would be the best witness to testify to what these types of what type of agreements currently exist. We'll have to think more about that. Okay so on page 10 is that potential technical what we think I think is a potential technical correction to that body camera language. So, as I understood it and as I think this committee understands it that that requirement to comply with a body camera policy only applies if an agency actually is using body cameras. Or an officer's authorized to use a body camera and not a requirement for all law enforcement agencies to use a body camera. So with that understanding which we discussed. We have updated or drafted potential amendments this language to make it clearer that the requirement to comply with a body camera policy only applies if an agency and officers are actually using body cameras so that it's not read at all to be a requirement for all officers to use body cameras. This is separate from what you did in S to 19, which was in included language about Vermont or Department of Public Safety officers a requirement for them to use body cameras. This language would say beginning on January 122. Each law enforcement agency that authorizes its officers to use body cameras shall adopt following enforce the le ab's model bought body camera policy. And each law enforcement officer who uses a body camera shall comply with the provisions of that policy. One thing I just noted here and the notes for you is that there does appear to potentially be some conflict between this and the language that you passed in S to 19, which is now act 147 because in section one, which described the issues that the General Assembly committed to further working on the legislature committed to working on reviewing the le ab and ACL use model body camera policies. And the ledge committed to working on developing a statewide policy for adoption, prior to the effective date of section seven, which contained Department of Public Safety's requirement for all of its officers to use body cameras. And that effective date is October 1, 2020. So there it seemed like the General Assembly was saying that the General Assembly itself was going to adopt a body camera policy. Whereas here, this language would be saying that any agencies that use a pilot body camera have to comply with the le ab's model policy. So it seems like there needs to be some decision as to who is going to have the authority to adopt a policy that agencies have to use when they're using body cameras. Yes, we do need to figure that out. Yeah here so le ab already has its body camera policy was required to come up with one pursuant to that 2016 act. And you'll see further in the bill that this bill would require le ab to review its policy and amend it. With the idea that they would make any revisions to it before this new requirement takes effect for all agencies that use body cameras to follow the le ab policy. So it's something further to discuss there. Moving on to page 11. This would have amended the decision of what constitutes unprofessional conduct with the bill s 124, the major change being on page 12, which would have said category B conduct shall include the current law list instead of saying there's examples of category B. And then also importantly that it's excessive use of force. So it's a second offense rather than second offense that constitutes unprofessional conduct, which had a rippling effect throughout the chapter. But you already made those amendments and s 219 so you don't have to address them again here you've covered that so this is red strike through is to show that you've already addressed this issue. Just a reminder on page 13 that language about the when an agency has to report alleged category B conduct to the council. It's when the agency receives a credible report. Instead of the current law language that says agency reports it after the agency has already gone through a whole valid investigation, and then determined that the complaint is credible. That language is essentially saying, after a pre screen, and the complaint is credible, then it reports it to the council, the agency itself would still go through its process of conducting investigation, and then submitting its final investigative report to the council, but this change in the language would allow the council to be more aware of credible credible complaints upfront. So it would have more oversight over the agency's investigation of it. So committee this is one area where I'd love to explore how this works with our smaller municipal agencies because as you can imagine, if you're in a two or three or four person municipal law enforcement agency the people you work alongside who you might be having to look at a complaint against are probably also the people you go to the Saturday afternoon cook out with and your children play together and whatnot and whatnot. So, you know, I think it's worth exploring whether there is a more comfortable way of offering that sort of first blush review of a complaint that doesn't pit colleagues and friends against each other in a small town setting. And related to that madam chair I'll just note that the current law in the council unprofessional conduct chapter in 20 vs a 2404 which addresses investigations does put the onus on each agency to investigate complaints about alleged law enforcement officer unprofessional conduct. And the only exception at least written into the law right now is that there's a requirement for an agency to refer to the council. Any unprofessional conduct complaints made against an officer who is the executive officer of that agency the highest ranking officer, so that that agency is not needing to investigate its own boss. But it would, I think it'd be good to, yeah, get more testimony from the council on how this investigation process is working in practice and whether it. I believe it's, they're able in practice, and they have in practice been able to refer investigations to separate agencies, like the SP, but it'd be good to get just more testimony from the council on how that would that actually works in practice for the smaller law enforcement agencies. Great, we'll, we'll ask Andrea to schedule the council for later next week. That's good. So Rob LaClaire has a question. Thank you madam chair I'm just curious. Betsy and would there be anything about local collective bargaining agreements with law enforcement that could have some influence on this, you suppose. I think we need to hear more I'm just not an. I'm not an expert in that area and what is actually happening in practice. It is a current law requirement for agencies to investigate and report. Investigations to the results of their investigation to the council. So that is a requirement, since the council is the overall statewide entity with oversight over officer certifications. So agencies already have to conduct investigations and report the conclusions of them to the council. I think it's a good area for this committee to get more detail about any impediments to the current structure for conducting investigations. Due to any sort of labor agreements, I just don't have enough information on that to be able to address it for you in detail. Okay, thank you. That's a good question Rob will will do what we can to try to get a better understanding of the interaction between folks working conditions contracts and and oversight. Thank you madam chair. Page 14 online seven it does get into that civilian review aspect. When an agency does report its investigative report of alleged unprofessional conduct of an officer. It has to submit its investigative report to the council and you can see that current law language on page 14 line three. In the instances when they have to report to the council, they have to provide to the council a copy of any relevant documents associated with the report, including any findings decisions and the agency's investigative report. The new language that's proposed here is a specific requirement for the council to provide a copy of any investigative report and the relevant documents. That current law council advisory committee, which again is that five member gubernatorial appointed committee with the four public members and the fifth member being a retired officer. And that council advisory committee would be required to recommend to the council, any appropriate action to take in regard to the officers is the subject of the report. So that that is at least one aspect of additional civilian review of complaints of unprofessional conduct committed by officers at the bottom of this page in page 14 section 10 a. The enforcement specific provisions of this bill ends with follow up recommendations by specified entities on a variety of topics that are listed here. And I just noted that this is similar to but not the same as what S2 19 did, which set forth the legislative intent for the general assembly and its committees to continue to address many of these similar issues. I think that S2 19 language where the legislature was committing to further addressing issues. This requires specified entities to report back to the GovOps committees on various issues. And so on page 15. One of the issues is law enforcement officer qualifications with the LAB and the criminal justice training council making recommendations on those. Law enforcement training where the council would have to consult with different entities in reporting on the appropriateness of their current training. I did just highlight here that the council would have to look at its training and determine whether appropriate training is provided in the areas of cultural awareness implicit bias de escalation and also recognition of and appropriately responding to individuals with a mental condition. And I just noted that in S2 19. It did state that the general assembly is committed to evaluating whether and how to gather data on interactions between officers and people who have mental health issues. So similar. But you've committed to further work in that area. Page 16 continuing on with this overall topic of officer training. One of the things that this bill would require back a report back on is the council, the LAB and the Department of Public Safety, being required to consult with the LCT and other interested stakeholders to determine, among other things, whether the agency would be reestablished within a state agency or other oversight entity. And I just noted that I saw an S2 19 that the General Assembly committed to working on whether to resituate the council specifically under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Safety. So there was a similarity there between the two. Number three online 16 there. There's a language about the models of civilian oversight, where the AG's office would be required to consult, consult with the council to human rights commission BLCT and other interest parties to recommend one or more models of civilian oversight of law enforcement law enforcement. Similar to what we were discussing earlier, reporting allegations of officer misconduct here AG's office would be required to consult with the council human rights commission ACLU and other interested parties in order to identify a central point for reporting allegations of officer misconduct, which may be the council or another entity and how those allegations should be handled. Thank you Madam Chair. Betsy Ann, in a couple instances, it talks about other interested parties. How do they get invited to the table. I think when the entities were talking about this in Senate gov ops, there was a general consensus that they would make sure that they were open when they were discussing these issues that they'd hold public hearings, for example. I think it would be good to hear from these reporting entities about how they would involve other interested parties in practice. So that this committee can understand how that would work and whether there needs to be any additional language about requirements to include other interested parties. But for example with these, the council itself is a public entity so it would need to hold public hearings and are open meetings that people could attend. But what moves they would make to include people is probably better answered by them, what they would have planned in order to comply with that requirement. Thank you. I'm related to public oversight is number five that access to complaint information where that council advisory committee would need to consult with Secretary of State Human Rights Commission ACLU and other interest parties and reviewing public access to records, relating to allegations of officer misconduct and substantiations of those allegations in order to recommend any changes to current practice. According to that body camera issue here number six, there's a requirement for the LAB to report any changes it deems necessary to its body camera policy that it established pursuant to that 2016 act. And then after consulting with specified entities they would specifically recommend policies for responding to public records request for body cam footage and recommended timelines on responding and how to redact footage and the length of footage retention and and this is related to that language earlier in the bill that would require any law enforcement agency using body cams to comply with the LAB policy and there I just made that note again that in S2 19. It appeared the General Assembly, it was considering in the future to adopt its own body camera policy so just a reminder to look back at that issue and harmonize those two. And then finally that military equipment issue on page 18 sub seven. And the language provides after an opportunity here's some specific language rep Colston related to your previous question this specifically says, after an opportunity for community involvement and feedback. LAB shall recommend a statewide policy and officers use of military equipment. So there's potential model language if you want addressing what type of review needs to be made how to involve the public. So that's the real law enforcement officer training and regulation provisions of the bill. It does go on to address for the BC I see how to enter crime data, and then the makeup of the LAB adding members to the LAB, which are all it is all more law enforcement focused. And then a report on on page 22. Lawn town access to law enforcement services. I will note I was in houseways and means this morning. They reviewed both had they had a high level overview of S124 at the request of at least one of their members and then I did a walk through a vest 220 which they do have custody of. But I'll note here on this bottom of page 22. One of the things that houseways and means took particular interest in is this dispatch rates issue. Where right now, this current language would require the commissioner public safety to adopt rules that set forth the rates for the dispatch functions that it performs. And I'll just note in the time we have left that they did express interest in pursuing that further and I as I understand it. If this bill move out of committee, they would like to have custody of it thereafter in order to review that rate setting issue. Yes, I can understand that committee members any questions for Betsy and. All right, thank you. That's the end for running through all of those annotated comments on the first half of the bill. I appreciate that. Jim Harrison. Before I forget, thank you, Madam chair, Betsy and there's a section that you just went over a few pages ago about consideration of the location change of the training academy. What can any insight as to what precipitated that. Maybe I have a little bit of bias because it's not in my district but it's right down the street. And we certainly see law enforcement from many jurisdictions around the state traveling through our district which I for one certainly appreciate. It keeps me on my toes in terms of my speed limit, but any sense as to where that came from. So on page 16, line 10, whether the police academy should be really relocated to a different area of the state. I think generally that was going to access to the academy to enable more people to pursue a career in law enforcement and whether that's just that's the right area of the state to have the academy. I think that was the general idea. Just concerned about access to training. Probably for more, more direct answer would be good to hear from a representative of Senate gov ops about their specific concerns, which I can't specifically speak to, but I think it generally was about access to the training. Thank you. Great committee any other questions. As we have been going through these sections. If you have been inspired to suggest someone's perspective you would like to hear on any of these suggestions please do reach out to me we have, we have a basic structure for for a committee agenda next week which will be pretty much solely focused on this bill. And we can certainly try to fit in different different perspectives within that structure for the next week. So please do reach out to me. And I'm sure that you could. You could also reach out to our Senate counterparts if you're curious about who they heard from on any particular section. All right, any other questions, comments, committee discussion. All right. So representative Donahue thank you for for sticking with us this morning. Please do share any thoughts that you have with us. I, in your inbox you've got my little list of I was dual tasking listening and running through the bill and so I get a little minor hit list. I always appreciate your attention to the details. It's on any other thoughts as you have gone through the the first sections of the bill with us. No, not at the moment thank you everything that I thought I had questions about everybody brought up. So it's great. So Betsy and I was hoping that you might be able to take a look at the commissioners reform plan. The commissioners 10 point plan not to be confused with the ACLU 10 point plan that we heard mentioned frequently in our public hearing. We have, or, or at least I have had the an opportunity to take a peek at and Donahue's comparison of the ACLU 10 point plan and what we have before us in these bills. And so what I'd like to do is have an opportunity to take a look at the DPS modernization plan which is DPS is 10 point plan and understand what parts of it are are captured here or at least touched on here and what parts of it might be things that that DPS and the legislature will come back to Jim your hand is up did you want to jump in again. Okay, and Donahue. Thank you. Madam chair you may have already mentioned this at some point to your committee but probably helpful background in terms of cross collaboration amount among committees to know that the house health care committee currently is looking at budget language because the Department of Public Safety has actually made a proposal for an initiative to have expand embedded mental health workers in the barracks and we're looking at, you know, the model and any recommendations we have. So that's a kind of quickly moving piece in this year's budget. So, and I would love to hear sort of a report back after you feel like you've got a conclusion on that and help us understand the health care committee's perspective on on what I think we have assumed would be a valuable collaboration between people who are professionally trained mental health responders and people who are law enforcement officers. So I think that there's probably very broad consensus that that kind of collaboration has strong value. But when you get into the details, you know what what the model should be like is what we're taking testimony to hear, but the other heads up is there is placeholder language in the budget because the budget has to move before we can finish with it. So don't assume when you see it folks that that placeholder language means that's what our recommendations going to be great. Thanks and all right. So Betsy and when, when would you comfortably feel like you could help us understand how what we're looking at here meshes with the totality of the modernization plan as it stands right now. Well, due to the doctors caution about needing a lot of coffee I don't want to commit to Tuesday. And it's a holiday weekend. We'd like you to have a day off. If maybe we could go for more Wednesday or Thursday that probably be more realistic with what I've got going on. Great. We will, we'll do a quick huddle on next week's agenda and and let you know. Super and your hand is up. Did you want to say something else. Okay. So we are about at the end of what we had hoped to accomplish today and please reach out to me if you have thoughts or questions and thank you to the doctor and rep Donnie you for being with us.