 Okay. It's Hollywood Squares time. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the March 2024 meeting of the racial disparities and the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel. I'll do the Hollywood Squares thing and go around and when I call on you please introduce yourself and tell us, you know, something interesting. Grant. Grant Taylor taking minutes for the group. Wonderful. Thank you. Aaron. Okay. Hi everyone took me a second to find the unmute Aaron Jacobson for the attorney general's office. Great. Reverend Hughes. Mark Hughes, the Vermont racial justice alliance. Good evening, everyone. Even though his. Tyler. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tyler Allen. I use he him pronouns. I am the commissioner designated appointee from DCF. It's good to see everybody. Yes. Rebecca. Hi everyone, Rebecca Turner defender general's office. Great. Tim. Oh, there you go. Tim leaders do want department of states turnies and sheriffs and I just wanted to let everyone know I'll talk more about later but sweet my last meeting as the appointee for the department for Zana Lava from Orleans will be the new appointee but I'll still attend and be a proxy where we're needed. So you know it didn't get disappeared I'm just trying not to spread so thin and still going to work as closely as possible with our fearless chair. So good to see everybody. Okay. Thank you. Jen Furpo. Hey Jen Furpo, I'm the designee for the Vermont criminal justice council. Great. Thank you. Jack Rose. Hi, thanks. Yeah, I go by Jack so thanks for that she her pronouns. I am with the department of corrections on the health equity program director and I am not the appointee Derek is so I'll let him introduce himself. Thank you. Laura Carter. Hi everybody. My name is Laura Carter. I am a data analyst in the division of racial justice statistics which is in the office of racial equity. Sheila. Good evening everyone. Sheila Linton she her pronouns panel member and executive director and founder of the social justice center. Thank you. Derek. Good evening folks starting to hop on a couple of minutes late and I'm in my car so I'm going to go off video in a moment while I drive myself home but Derek me a deaf Nick. I represent the department of corrections and my role there is the community and restorative justice executives. Dan Bennett. Dan. Okay. Tiffany. I'm a data manager for the office of racial equity. I'm happy to be here tonight. Great. Thank you. I'm not sure who Isaac is whose autopilot is here. If you're hearing me which. Isaac is the community engagement support director for the alliance. Oh, thank you. Okay. And then I'll try once again Dan Bennett. That's that. Okay. Oh, he said he gave his intro and it sounds like nothing came through, but he's here. It's the internet. Being the internet. Never mind. Hi Dan. Okay. Introductions, announcements. Judge Morrissey will not be here. Jessica Brown will not be here. And Susanna will not be here this evening. Everybody has their things they need to do. So those are those announcements. The second list of announcements that I have is I forgot to put in the approval of the minutes. I'm sorry. Aaron, you look like you've got a question. I'm counting to make sure we have quorum. Oh, I thought we did. I'm counting. Hold on. Okay. Carry on. I'll just keep counting. There are eight. I think we need nine. Are there nine? Yeah. Okay. All right. They're nine. So yes, Tim. Oh, that was to the minutes. Oh, okay. Let's go. If that works for you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. I your your go for it. On the fourth vote, which actually had to do with second look. I voted no. And I think it was just a Scrivener's error, but it was recorded as yes in the minute. So with that change. I think we need to be in favor of approval of the minutes as long as that change were included. Okay. Anyone seconding. More discussion. No. Okay. Let's take a vote. I'm happy to second that given given what Tim already identified. Great. Anything else. Any further discussion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you again. Some interesting way. I. Hi. Hi. All opposed. Great. All staining. Minutes are approved with that one. Correction. Thank you. That didn't take long. All right. Plunging right in. Okay. I think I may remember. From the voting last time, I. Was rather concerned by the fact that there were three. Large governmental organizations that did either a. An abstention over an entire section. Of the report. Or of the entire report. Because it then becomes at least in my mind. Hello. Jennifer, you're not on mute just so you know. I am sorry. Just trying to direct my kids. How to eat. So I'll go on mute. My apologies. It's dinner time. The woman home. Eating is it's very critical. So anyway, I was concerned by that because what it turns the art up into. Is a body that doesn't seem to be a lot more than some silent governmental actors. And community members. And if you'll remember, I made that comment last time and that grew on me. As time went on. It led me to write a letter. Now, having said that this letter is not from the panel. It's from me. It's from the chair. And it will go to all of the commissioners. For whom you are proxies. Some many of you and the attorney general. Because I think it addresses some really root. Issues that are critical to the future relevance of this panel. And it's functioning. And so I just want to redo that letter now. I would have sent it, but there are those. Those open meeting laws, which kind of. Militate against that. So dear. Whatever commissioner, et cetera. Firstly, it is critical that everyone understands that I am speaking structurally and a manifestly not speaking of individuals. The issue at hand is systemic. It thus involves all of us. And not as individual, but rather as players in an ugly epic drama that has been going on for a millennium or so. Recently, as you know, the R DAP completed its statutorily required report on racial disparities in the adult criminal and juvenile justice systems. This report was primarily approached by way of three sub committees, and during our open war and meetings conveyed their work to the entire body for discussion and contemplation. The process was arduous and imperfect and yet resulted in an exhaustive doubt with some truly hopeful people will say exhausting document. When the R DAP last met our primary order of business was to vote on the individual individual questions raised in the report. This is not an unusual process for this body. At the end of the voting what struck me very unpleasantly was the fact that two governmental organs and one which abstained from voting on full on fully a discrete third of the report. All frankly hugely influential governmental organs approach the voting with a blanket abstention. I will be plan gently clear. Abstention is not the problem. A blanket abstention in which a given supposedly involved agency takes no position on a vast section of or anything in a report is three governmental organs did precisely this in effect at the moment when participation mattered the most these three bodies with tremendous power decided not to participate. I publicly noted this at the meeting and not with pleasure. The true beauty of the R DAP is the interaction of community members actual thought leaders in their communities with people who not only participate in but are literally constitutive of state government. The point is to attack racial disparities. Discussion is the tool by which this task is approached and it is vital to understand that discussion is a dialectical activity. The word dialectical refers to the fact that all who speak with one another may in fact be moved by one another and perhaps even move to adopt an unfamiliar position on a given matter that they did not originally profess. This happens to me all the time when I get into my fascist mode. One member of the panel in particular brings me back from the brink and reminds me of my humanity. Just so you all know it Sheila. If those discussions do not take place that I submit that there is simply no point in having the R DAP at all. The panel becomes little more than a checked box with that says that the state wants people to believe that is working on racial equity. People of color are used to seeing that ultimately meaningless checked box and further to seeing that simple acknowledgement does not equal hard and uncomfortable work. But blanket abstentions rather deny that discussion in all of its dialectical glory happened at our DAP meetings at all. In the final analysis which is the report itself. These disengagement suggests that three major governmental organs simply have a limited amount or indeed nothing to say rather a depressing conclusion after roughly a year and a half of hard work. I do understand and please continue to think structurally even those who presented a blanket abstention operated not out of malice but rather out of an understanding of some notion of a standard operating procedure that has worked for them over the years. The issue is this systemic racism always lies in the interstices of standard operating procedure. And the use of that procedure can and did have unintended consequences that simply reinforce certain elements of racism that we are clearly trying to eradicate. The community members on the R DAP all took positions not on every question but certainly on most. Several governmental bodies did the same. And as I've noted other major players in the state simply said officially nothing. And they did so with what must surely have seemed good reason. But here are the unintended consequences of that act. I can only speak for myself but as a person of color who serves on the R DAP not merely as chair but also as a community member the blanket abstentions made me feel a bit like a performing monkey like tinted window dress window dressing who helped to check that all important box that says quote we in Vermont are doing our equity work unquote. I am frankly not at all certain of how or if the blanket abstentions affect the usefulness of our work. I am also utterly unclear about what makes this document any different from what any citizen might say to their legislators with the hope that some legislation might result. Once again this utterly delegitimizes the work of the R DAP in light of how it is constituted. I would submit that we're not doing our collective equity work if important parts of state government simply decide to take themselves out of the equation and even more importantly out of the discussion. It does structurally turn the community members on the panel into little more than privileged member performers with opinions. Sadly this has happened all too often with many different kinds of government over the decades and people of color are well aware of this. It doesn't feel good. It hurts. One can easily feel used to support standard operating procedure and thus in many cases racial erasure itself. This is staggeringly at direct odds with the stated goal of the R DAP. I do not know what the solution to the sorny problem is. I do know that standard operating procedure cannot reliably be used to attack systemic racial problems. I hope that my letter can point to the need to have some conversations, dialectical, possibly thought changing that can produce a far better result than what we got with this newest report. Those proposed conversations are, in my view, essential to the future relevance and functioning of the R DAP. And in that spirit I write, hoping that we all can move our organizational practice into a more descriptive and participatory space. We won't immediately abolish racial bias, but at least then we'll have a better chance of doing so collaboratively as a group. Love and kisses. Thank you Sheila. Thank you. That sums up where I'm at. You're welcome. Thank you. You're more than welcome. You're more than welcome. I was troubled. And I do think that it is in, part of my job to be the chair is to protect this body. And if something seems off, I am obliged because you voted me chair. I am obliged to take care of it. And so this will go out in the morning. To all of the commissioners. I'm not, you notice I don't name names. Not play in that game. I'm talking about a structure. That's far more important. Because that's what's going on here. And so it will go out to all of the commissioners that we all represent, many of us do. And that will be that. So I just wanted to read that to you. And just so you know where we're at. Any questions, anything else that. I can answer for you. Thank you for sharing. Mr. Chair. I thought it was. Written with an incredible amount of. Respect and poise. And also with the right amount of bluntness. To the points you're trying to get across. So I thought it was incredibly well. Spoken as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right then. Okay. While we're going around, I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate you as well. I thought that was very well written. I agree with what Tim said. I think there's a great deal of poison there and elegance and the way you're writing, which is standard from you. I do appreciate that. So, and I think that'll be, it'll be a valuable message to, you know, for my commissioner to hear and for others to hear. So I appreciate you're putting it out there. Thank you. Sheila. Oh, I'm then Aaron. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Aaron, you first, you were first. Hey, thanks, Sheila. Hey, Tom, thank you so much for writing that. I think you have to be courageous to do it. And I appreciate it. And. I, well, one thing I want to acknowledge at the top is that. I think about this a lot. I think in terms of. You know, who's silence favors, I think if. If silence is comfortable for you, you're probably privileged. If the silence makes you uncomfortable, it's probably because you're not privileged. And I want to apologize for the role I played in. The attorney general's office abstaining on the community oversight of policing recommendations. I want to explain what my role was that I'm apologizing for. That is that I did not effectively communicate with the attorney general. About. Some of the content of those recommendations, it was a lot. It was a lengthy part of the report. And I just think I wasn't enough as effective at a communicator as I could have been. And I think that was a good point. I think that was a good point. Some of the reasons that my office abstained were simply about the amount of time that we had to review the recommendations, which wasn't much. And I'm not saying this to make excuses. I'm saying it because that to me means I just should have tried harder. And I, and I. I think I probably felt comfortable with the abstention because it meant that. That's untrue. That's false. And I, and that's a regrettable thing that I thought and I'm sorry. I think one, one really important part of the. The statement that you made a ton is that. You said something like, I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is, but I would say that if we're not going to talk about solutions tonight, I hope that we can at a future meeting. Yes. I do have some ideas for how we could. Have a better process that, that makes it. Easier for government engagement and that makes government engagement more fulsome. And. Also, obviously I think this letter is part of the solution. I think it's, it sends a really clear, loud, important message. And so with that, I'll, I just want to reiterate my gratitude to you a ton and, and to this whole panel. Thanks. Thank you, Erin. Thanks very much for. Thank you. Sheila. I'm, I, I got all twisted up. That's what's up. Thank you. I'm just delighted to have you as our chair and for you to just keep it real. I had some both somatic feelings upon voting as well as some afterthoughts and I would like to continue this conversation. Yes. I do have my comment is, is that. I have some concerns as well. And some of those concerns are around timing and are around delegation. And I feel as though, you know, myself as a community member who also sit on the subcommittee who also helped write reports who also did a huge body of work for no pay or very little. Had very limited time. And I'm not, I'm not at the table getting paid to be here. And I also want to say that I think that when we have certain people who are delegated to represent certain entities and that person isn't necessarily consistent for a long time. I think that we should work on that. Like it should be like at least a year or some type of commitment because sometimes I forget who is who, because it's like, there's a proxy. I don't get a proxy. Right. And I just think it's an issue that we need to be talking about with the people who are not community members. So I just wanted to add that to the conversation when we have that conversation, because I think it's a real concern for me. I'm. Top of the top of the next. Agendum. Is this discussion. Anybody else. Derek and then Rebecca. Thank you. Um, yeah, I just still metabolizing that beautiful. And necessary piece of work. And the fucking emotional labor that you had to do to produce it. It's on them forgive me, but I just. I know you're upset. I get it. And I appreciate your concern. I just, I just want to just make a public statement of my love for you. And, um, I, um, I'm, I'm so thankful that you are and everybody who's on this, but I am addressing this, you know, to and hopefully with you on. I'm so thankful that you are willing to double down and double down again. On that. Unassailable. Sense of dignity that is intrinsic. And continue to put the attention on. The structures that. Attempts intentionally and or otherwise to continue. At large to try to undermine that. Um, you know, I think folks understand I'm the DOC representative. We were one of, I think the 2 agencies that just. Mid blacking blanket extent, uh, abstentions. Um, Aaron, I really appreciated. Your thoughts because they also led me to reflect on whether or not. There was more. In my role as a designate to the department of corrections that I could do to. Have the department of corrections understand that these were recommendations. Of essentially like. Strategies within topical focal areas that in a report like they were. They were layers down in the political rarefied air. Of, uh, you know. Um, I think that's what I'm trying to say. Uh, as opposed to say legislation, they, they don't preclude any executive branch institution. From testifying on behalf of that institution. And so I'd say the. Self-reflective and hopefully constructive part of me just kept wondering like, is there more I can do in my role. As a designate. The role of designee to the panel relative to. Institutions when they show up in the body politics, such as the legislature to, to testify. And my answer for me is probably yes, there's probably more I can do. Or at least attempt to do. So thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you. A ton that you. Once again. Show up so entirely. With like such staggering authenticity and it's humbling. And we are just beyond lucky that. You are just a friend and a colleague. And have taken up the mantle of leadership. And so I thank you. And I'm proud to be in this conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Rebecca. So I wanted, I do want to join. My gratitude to you. A ton for doing this. On behalf of law and yourself, but. Specifically as chair for art app specifically because you felt obligated. That it impacted the very essence of what we are about. And so I want to talk to about that for a moment. For what I heard was that you, you took a lot of personal responsibility in that. I think what my. Where I'm at. Having been. Very much involved in. Very much on one subcommittee. I did not carry the heavy weight on that second subcommittee. I am Tyler and Elizabeth did that on the juvenile justice, but I was certainly involved. The fact that we did this for the, over the course of a year. Grant, and we didn't get the final draft of the report until the end. And I understand time issues. I understand the explanations that are said here. I think for me, what I really appreciate your letter to be a ton, particularly in this moment, going to agenda item. Next. Is that too? Is that I fundamentally don't. I don't know what the role of our DAP is. So we are, we have submitted a report. We are in the process of self-reflection on, on this one particular point, and I think it's critical, but it speaks to a larger, a larger question in my mind. Our creation was always so broad. We set forth last year to go forward with what we thought were priority items. That we got into this report. And here we are almost across over the legislative session. Where we are getting requests here and there from specific legislators. There are a number of us who are in there regularly testifying specific bills. I'm in there on particular bills, raising the flag about the racial disparate impact and the need to bring in community voices time and time again, and it's not happening. And we'll talk about that. But my, I think what I hope we do next with this most recent experience, sort of this moment of reflection as to why are we here? What is the use of us? If what we do once a month and more for those who work on the subcommittees is to just submit a report to what end? For what purpose? And so whether it's the next agenda item, I think that fundamental to me coming out of these, sort of the past reports, this most recent report, this legislative session. I think a question for me is what we should ask ourselves is what are we here for? What, how can we be most effective? Perhaps. If the question is, is how to bridge the pipeline, whatever the, that, how you put it on in the agenda in terms of, is it, is it providing racial impact statements to the legislature? Is it to provide whatever else? It is a functional pipeline between the legislature and the RDAB. Again, I'm, I'm. Merging issues, but just a general comment that I'm at a place of general frustration because on one's front, I'm seeing at the legislative session this year, astoundingly scary bills being introduced and rushed and nearing the end zone for voting on one side of the chamber, without any input from community members on bills that I think will have racial impact. So I'll just stop there. Okay. Thank you. Mark. Mark. It's on, I appreciate you. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate you a lot. I just wanted to just really echo what Rebecca and some of the others were saying. And, you know, quite frankly and respectfully, just, you know, I take some of the comments and some of the attitudes with mostly some of our appointees are like our state appointees is being largely perfunctory. Just because I can say that because I, because I watched the whole thing play out last week as well. And I want to give a special shout out to the tenacity and and also the persistence of Rebecca Turner. And Sheila Linton. Who've been here since day one. And watch this thing play out and know that my departure is was directly related to the exact struggle that you're endeavoring right now. So this is incredibly and meet meaningful to me personally, especially all of the time and effort that it took to actually to move forward act 54. In 2017 and get the work done. And to establish this, this group. We did that. We did that. And that's why you're here. And I think that the. You know, there's been a lot of frustration over the years. I think it's been over six years now. Yeah. Since you've been in place. But instead of making it into a, you know, really long like lecture or anything like that, just to get practical. I would just say that. You know, what we're, what we're seeing is we're just seeing the growing pains of something that was. Yes. Really never fundamentally designed to do what it is that we thought it was hope that we hoped it to do that we hoped it would do. In fact, what we asked for is oversight. And I know that scares the hell out of everybody on the call. Most, most of you who are. We asked for oversight. This is what we got. But you know how sausage is made in the legislature. And I would just say that. There's a lot of structural challenges with what it is that you're doing. And, you know, we should be contemplating going back in and maybe restructuring some of. You know, the enabling statute. To be able to. To. To. To give this, this panel, the power to do what it is that it was originally commissioned to do. And that they've grown to, they may have like, not wanted it at first, but they grew to wanting it to do even more. Yeah. I had an extensive conversation with coach yesterday on that very point. And so, yeah, I mean, so it's, it's, it's frustrating. And it's, it's also frustrating to even the, the appointees that are, that are here, you know, if it were up to me, I'd have like charity and Nick and Chris and Matt and John and Tom and Jen be required to show up at one of these meetings or two of these meetings a year or something like that. I don't know what that looks like. I don't know what that looks like. Yeah, I'd have them show up and have them sit in that seat and have them take the vote. And, and maybe what that would do is it would disconnect Tyler and Tim and Derek and others and Aaron and others. Because frankly, politically and economically, you are captive and that's just how it is. And it's not your fault. You know, and it's not because you're bad people or anything like that. It's just, this is the way it is. And this is your quiescent state. This is how it operates. And I think that that's, that's the reality that we have to talk about. And, but I think there, there are larger implications and I promise I won't be very much longer, but I just, you know, I just really want to, you know, focus back on what Rebecca was saying a minute ago. And she really is my favorite of the folks here, you know, her and Sheila. But, you know, it's just, there's a massive amount of going on in judiciary and house and Senate right now. And they're currently walking back. A lot of the criminal justice reform in, in a lot of the, the, the, what we called. Reinvestment and. And they're doing it. A lot of it is, is fear mongering in dog whistles that are happening. That's really rolling. That's really. I mean, in real, in real life, when you're making policy decisions, these knee jerk policy decisions. Out of out of fear and just out of just this, this spontaneity because there's this sense of urgency because everybody's not safe. And we got to do this now. It's just not going to work. And what's, what's more frightening about it is, is at the same time. When you look at him, you know, you know, what it is is at the same time. When you look at human services and you start talking about the, the equity lens or lack thereof. That we're rolling out. Prevention as well as mental health and other social programs. We're not even ensuring that there's equitable access for black and brown and marginalized communities on that front. So all of this stuff is going on at the same time. And I'm. Finally, what I would. Strongly encourage. You know, if it were my world for like another 15 minutes. Would be if the legislature. If judiciary would consider. Just maybe. Not stopping everything, but just. The implement the implementation dates. Of a lot of this policy. What if we were able to just. Let everything cool off after this session. Bring in some independent. Third party or something and just do a. A global scope analysis. Of what the, the combination of all of these changes are doing, but it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen because we all know this is a system. In everything that happens downstream effects is upstream. And the concern is, is that. There may be some unforeseen consequences in a lot of these policy changes. That are going to manifest themselves. And when they touch the lives of the people. That they touch. A lot of it is going to be irrevocable. We're going to go back to the issues of the community. So this is serious business and there are people who are sitting on this panel who are in those committees. And testify into that work. And that's what frustrates the heck out of me. And at the same time, we're doing that. If we were able to be able to refocus our racial lens on. it as a necessity, but just doing it through an equity lens. If we're able to do that during that cooling off, if you will, period, maybe we might be able to get through this and not really create a destabilization that's going to impact people's lives for generations to come. Just as sure as we're all here, I'm pretty sure what we're doing collectively, what's getting ready to come out of the house and what's getting ready to come out of the Senate judiciary and when they cross over and when they all graduate and grow up to be lost, that is going to cause a lot of havoc and that falls on this body. That's what this body was intended to do was to hedge stuff off like that. Thanks for the time. Thank you. Chris Loris is here. He just sort of showed up a little late, but anyway, he didn't introduce himself, but there he is. Hi, Chris. And he has his hand up. You don't mean to have your hand up, do you? Because we can't hear you. You got to love technology. Here we all are being highfalutin and we can't push buttons. I love it. There. You got me? Yes. So I do apologize that I wasn't here for the introduction. So I'll introduce myself again, Aiton. Thank you for that. Christopher Loris. Y'all have seen me showing up here once in a while, either wearing or attesting to wearing the hat of either criminal justice council or crime research group. And I just wanted to share with y'all that I didn't come here to tell you that I was no longer on the criminal justice council nor am I any longer an employee with crime research group. Those are just again, the sides tell you who I am, where I am. But just saw something dumped into my email from Mark Hughes about the meeting. I was like, crud, meeting's going on. And so now just good old civilian, Christopher Loris from Rutland, who started his public service career in the city of Rutland back in 1995. I just wanted to share with this group one thing. It looks like it's kind of timely given the conversation I walked into when I joined y'all. And I did not see the letter that you folks have been referencing that Aiton had written. And that actually makes what I'm going to tell y'all that much better. I'm sorry I'm shivering. I've been outside with no jacket. So I'm going down here in Rutland. I just wanted to share with all you folks that in the 30 years of public service I've had in Vermont at local level, state level. As said, the latest thing was Vermont Criminal Justice Council just finished three-year gig there as a gubernatorial appointee. And I need to share that watching your group just outside looking in because I was there and only as an observer, never as a participant. I can tell you that our DAP by far, and I mean by a great margin over whatever the second committee council I've ever seen as. But you guys have been the most impactful and most productive council, board, commission, committee, division, alderman, city council that I've ever witnessed in my 30 years. And it's because of the passion you bring to whatever you're doing here. It translates to action that I in a way I haven't seen out of any other work group since I've been doing this stuff. So you guys are top notch. You're in for the right reasons and you may not feel like you accomplished a lot. But I've been watching stuff for a long time in the state of Vermont. You've accomplished a lot as a small group with what you put into this. And I've told Atom this one-on-one. So I'm going to say it in front of y'all. And it's a testament to Atom. I have learned so much just watching this cat over the last three years. And here I am, you know, an old turd. Thought I couldn't learn anything else from public service and watching other people. And this guy showed me how to lead a group. So Atom, thank you for that personally. And you guys keep having the conversations you're having because I think you're going to be just as impactful as a group starting from now going forward. And so Godspeed to you. I'm sorry I got a cut and run. But I've got to be at some very, very good friends of mine. Syrian family that's down here in Renton lives a few blocks away. I've got to go break fast with them because I'm following in the footsteps of Curtis Reed and honoring and celebrating the month of Ramadan with my friends. So Atom, love you, buddy. Take care. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. That was a paid for political announcement. I was feeling, I was absolutely devastated one day and I paid him to say that. Anyway, okay, I think we're just, we're going through, I think Mark hit it. We're growing, it's growing pains. It's growing pains. And I will move through it. Mark said things don't change unless there's conflict. And there's, and here we are, and here we are. And I really think, I do believe that. And I think this will bring us to some really good spots. And I think it'll get even better because Rebecca's going to talk to us about some ideas, maybe some ways to even start a discussion about this pipeline thing from the legislature to us because as Mark was just pointing out, we were supposed to get these bills at some point, way before it got to this point. And it didn't, it didn't. And there are a bunch of them this, this session. I keep hearing about new ones every damn day. That's got it improved. We've mentioned that as a panel. We've talked about that. We talked about it last session, you know, that wasn't going to happen again. And here we are. Interesting what panic will do, won't it? You know, so anyway, Rebecca, the floor is yours. Sorry. I want to start. I think instead of talking about all the bills, that I could rather than I'll start with two that I saw your name attached to on behalf of RDAB on the agendas for house judiciary. I believe they're both in house judiciary committee this week. Yes, I did just speak on two bills. And I believe it's age 655. Is that right? Relating to related to substantial overall of our expungement slash ceiling laws. And when I say substantial overhaul, I'm saying the elimination of expungements and changing it to a ceiling. But that's tomorrow, I think, Eitan. Is that right? Yes. And I guess I read that very, very badly. And then there is a second one I saw your name on 176, which is about traffic secondary enforcement of traffic motor vehicle violations. And that was referenced in our report that we just submitted. And it was referenced in the community. I forget the title shield of that section that you wrote, but it was about community safety. And there was a reference there. Again, I don't have the page number, but recommend recommending reprioritizing where law enforcement, traffic enforcement should be. And there was a reference there to this bill. And this is the bill that is just being introduced in house judiciary for the first time this session. I understand it was before transportation committee last session, but there's been no testimony taken on this one coming up. And that is about, I think the goal is to deprioritize certain traffic law enforcement by way of trying to make it as a secondary enforcement only after another violation. And so there's that. In my, now we're in what month of the session. I think this is the first possible reform side of the criminal justice system bill I've seen yet. There have been others that I know you've been invited to talk on our behalf, H534, relating to overhauling, creating enhanced penalties, new offenses for retail theft. And I saw that in 6-2 or something. H534, I think. Oh, okay. There was an attending one, but I think that's now the lead that you shared with the group that seems to not have come back on the committee agendas yet. And there was something else. What has, what has not, what I've not seen come up from your emails to us. I mean, I don't think you've been invited is in the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are also significant bills being proposed that fundamentally change, broaden the scope of, of crimes. And that's specifically the drug drug code. There's a proposal there to drop the requirement that they're changing the definition of knowingly as a mens rea for all controlled substances, offenses, and title 18, misdemeanor to felony, possession to trafficking. Wherever the word knowingly is required, knowingly possess, knowingly traffic. It now can be proven without someone actually knowing. But I have a should have known standard, an objective standard. That's a substantial change that there is a proposal on. Just that, that S58, that's one, we have four sections in S58 that are significant. One of the additional section in there was something we talked about last year. This is about adding to the big 12 types of offenses where if committed by youth that that has to start in criminal court last year, instead of instead of juvenile delinquency last year, that came up on our radar as an issue of concern. Certain organizations wrote letters asking the legislature to not pass it. Well, they didn't that session, but that has come back in S58. And it's not decreasing that list. It's adding to it. So again, the same issues that we wrote, we asked with our DAP and other impact community members expressed in terms of the racial impact that that would have in a bad way is happening again, again, without anyone from Senate Judiciary asking for input from the community members. And just for the record, the Senate Judiciary has not asked the defender general's office for our input on the substantial changes to the drug code. And so it is an and there's two other sections in there. I can't even raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction. That had been passed, I think, three or four years ago, Tyler, you'll remember, to raise the age to increase the jurisdiction of family courts with delinquency proceedings up to 20. It's been delayed year after year since it was passed. I think it's three times. There's another proposal now to delay it yet again. Again, we know what that delay, who that impacts most, what 19-year-olds are not going to benefit from that yet again. And there's been a testimony from our office on this and the racial disparate impact that has. And again, putting that off, again, no invitation from communities impacted from RDAB to speak on that bill. This is just a drop of what we're seeing. It is when Mark talks about his impressions of the bills and how fundamentally kind of a rollback on the reform that we were seeing, even just last year, I think it's an understatement too. I mean, it's really concerning for us. So I think how do we make it? In there, I see how we at RDAB are not fundamentally structured to provide real-time substantive input. These drafts, Erin, Tim, I think H655, there was another draft this morning. Which is what I read after reading two other drafts over the weekend that I was told to read. And you have slight more advantage. Like the people who went today had to have that sort of absorption and pivot to testify in the latest draft. That it's extraordinarily taxing for people who do this as a day job for government entities. So again, increasingly what I see, and I wish Susanna, I defer to her in terms of her, I know she has a lot of experience in trying to push racial impact statements, assessments through Vermont, whether it's at the executive level or not. But increasingly, I'm interested in what other states, what their localities have done, what legislatures have done to pass this kind of stuff, where these impact statements are coming from, how they're resourced, how they're structured, so we can give something that's meaningful and not open. I'd like to ask just generally, I'm totally uncomfortable with this testimony I'm supposed to give tomorrow. I mean, I feel like I'm flying by the seat of my pants, literally. Would it be most useful for me to say, look, you've already heard members of the RDAF in different guises speak on these and let's just leave it there for now. And then my sense being that we try to get the Senate side of this after crossover that they, I mean, that's as good as I'm coming up with right now, folks. My head is not, okay, Tim, and then Rebecca. First of all, Rebecca, I felt very seen when you said the struggle of like, you know, part of the thing that I sometimes struggle with is I have this amorphous, I won't call it a committee, but it's the committee of people elected to be states attorneys that I'm always trying to coordinate with. And then these bills, sometimes 60 pages long, have eight drafts. And so one time I did the math recently, and it was like, since January 1st, I've looked at over 2,500-ish pages and, you know, word search is helpful, but not always. And a careful reading is always, there's no substitute for a careful reading. And I think it's hard because, you know, this council doesn't have any full-time staff. And in that way, it's, I mean, ATON give the proper historical reference, but it's like, we're all equal, which is one of the wonderful things about our voices on the ARDAP and the way that ATON runs these meetings. But then that's also sometimes a struggle because then, you know, I think you, Mr. Chair, sometimes feel like, how do I even respond? They've asked me this huge topic, you know, predictably Tim and Rebecca may have different perspectives, and that's healthy conflict that does create change. I want to just emphasize that conflict and conversation does create change. And sometimes I'm also like in this context as well, and without the ability to, because it's a moving, I hate to say, a moving target, a lot of these bills until after crossover, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a sizable opportunity to weigh in as the bills are taking shape on both sides. So it's a real struggle, even for me, like this is a, I have many parts of my job. This is one part of my job tracking legislation for the state's attorneys. I then meet with my executive committee every two weeks to try to update them. Always after that meeting on Friday, all of the bills change, and then I have to like wait another two weeks to try to get in touch with them. And then we meet with the state's attorneys about twice a year, all the state's attorneys. And so it's a struggle, Rebecca. I just want to, it's a struggle. And I know that the, if I had to lift up voices on this on the RDOT, it would be the community members because I am getting my opportunity on behalf of the, you know, state's attorneys to say my piece and acknowledging what Marcus said, right? Like I'm directed, I'm commanded to come in like pretty often on these bills. So I just want to acknowledge it's difficult. And I did also want to say that I'm trying to think about what a possible, my mind is kind of turning right now about what, how we can better support the chair when he gets a request too. So I'm thinking about it and want to acknowledge the fact that Rebecca, you highlighted some of the structural issues with how to respond. Is this something we should call in, ask representative Lalonde and coach for that matter to come in and talk about with us, how do we get this working? Because it's not working. And as Mark pointed out, that was one of the founding ideas of this body. Does that, Erin and then Rebecca? My response to that is not going to address like, what are you supposed to say tomorrow on H655? I mean, it is crossover week, we are not going to fix this problem this week. It's just like, no time, zero, zero hours in the day. I do think that the R-DAP should have two things. One, resources. I think that the legislature needs to provide the R-DAP with some resources. I think people should get paid more and I think we could have like a hired researcher or something. But I would say that I also think that the R-DAP should have like a legislative subcommittee. Because in addition to a lot of work happening while the legislature is in session, a lot happens outside of the session and you can, if you're paying attention and you're, you know, if you can be engaged, you can have these kinds of conversations with the chairs of various committees, you can be paying attention to what's coming so that we have time to plan ahead. That's not going to be the only solution to this issue, but I do think if we have the ability to work as a panel outside of the session, ahead of the session, I think that's a necessity if we're going to be effective come January through May. Rebecca. I think it's a wonderful idea to want to invite coach and the chair and someone probably from Senate judiciary to come and hear for sure, but I think you have a moment this week and I think that you can share with the committee what the frustration is here. I would add this and suggest this and perhaps the panel can weigh in on this as to whether or not we would support aton saying this. We are glad you are invited us. You're glad you thought of our debt. We're glad you're concerned about the racial equity impact of this bill such that you invited our debt. That's the presumption there, right? We believe you should conduct a racial equity impact assessment of this bill and any others. We're only just made aware of some, right, based on the structure. We don't have time, the resources to provide this in this timeframe, this time slot today, tomorrow, perhaps not for the rest of the session, given the limitations. We hope, right, we are struggling with how we can be most impactful, right, and we need to, and that's a larger conversation for another day, but I think that the moment, the opportunity to deliver this message, I think we need to make it clearly, often, and you have a moment this week. I feel like I'm hearing from this panel that we can be in agreement on that. This agrees. Yeah. I'm perfectly up for that. I don't know how else we get it across. At that point, it's on the record. I would also just add, Aton, you mentioned suggesting that to the committees that you have heard from certain members of the panel already. I would be careful because I think the members that the committee have heard from members of the panel aren't just government stakeholders. They are not impacted community voices, period, and certainly not the community members of the panel. I just want to make sure there's not totally taken. That's what I'll do. That's what I'll do. They'll be happy. I'm going to take them long. They'll be in Evan. Mark. F-35s, so just don't mind the background so much if it gets too loud. I'll just come back and tell you later. I thought that was the next agenda item. I was about to get very excited. Tim, Christine and I were talking about the F-35s here, and we thought we would go out to the airfield and tell them we deserved to get a ride, like at least once a month. Just let us in the plane, just give us a little ride. Of course, Christine would want to fly it though. So one of the things that occurred to me as y'all were talking was that, yeah, there's some structural things that are in each one of your areas of functionality as well that you'd want to come back and look at. That's another conversation I digress, but trying to stay as focused as we can on this, I agree. This is crossover. If it's a money bill, you got another week, but this is crossover. So you got that. There's some structural things that, obviously, you got it that y'all can do long term. There's some enabling statute stuff, blah, blah, blah, blah, I think, honestly, I think the most impactful thing that the R-DAP could do, and then this even runs up against a little bit of a, you know, some possible conflicts of interest, is to write a letter, not an ATON letter, but a R-DAP letter. Not to say that I didn't really enjoy ATON's letter. I thought it was awesome. It was good. But I, with the letter, what I believe that letter should communicate is the concern that this committee shares. I don't, let's forget about what we don't agree about. Let's talk about what we do agree on. And I think part of that is, is we agree that there's a breakneck speed at which these laws are coming out. That's what I've heard. That's what I see. We also, we've established, it sounds like there's a general consensus that many of them are likely harmful to marginalized communities in some way or another. I don't really think I'm pushing too hard right now. And the other thing too is, is I don't think any of us understand what the collective impact of all of them could be. And I think one of the things that I stated as a suggestion is, well, let's find out. Let's suggest that somehow or another we create an apparatus to find out just that. Not to say that we just clog up the whole process and just not have the laws passed. That's not even, I mean, you can't do that. But you can delay some of their implementation. And you could certainly, you could certainly, you know, because there's a, there's an implementation date on all of our policies. And there could be, you could insert, you could recommend a clause maybe and that you, that it could just say, you know, at such time as this analysis or this review has been done. Maybe it seems like a, you know, maybe it sounds like the old man's crazy and it's just a farfetched idea. But I just refuse to sit here and believe that there's absolutely nothing that you can do. I believe it's possible that, that this committee could send over a letter, at least with a recommend is not going to, it doesn't mean they're going to take your vice. I mean, they rarely do. But it could be a public statement, though, it could be something that goes out, you know, I'd sign off on that. So that's, and I think also the whole, the point that I made about human services and the fact that there's inequities and Tyler, I think you probably, probably see this better than anybody in this committee, just because of the nature of your work. Maybe Derek too, but the social services, there, you know, there's a gap in there. There's a safety net for some, but there's a huge gap for others. And I think that could be communicated as a finding of this committee or an understanding at least of this committee that is a, is the second of the two prong disaster that we're headed towards. And just, you know, making an open letter. And maybe some people, maybe some people on this committee or I keep calling in a committee, I forget even, I forget even what we named it, racial disparities in the criminal console, console, your console, but maybe there's some folks that would have to abstain. Okay. I get it. I get it. But I do think there's something that you could do if you wanted to. Sure. If it's a letter, I mean, that's not particularly difficult. I mean, in terms of time, no, I mean, that's the easiest thing to do. I mean, it doesn't mean there's a lot, not a lot more. It has to be done, you know, in the short term and later on down the road. But I'm just talking about, you know, how to, what can you possibly do to at least try to mitigate this, this train wreck that's getting ready to happen? Okay. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Others, you're welcome. Anybody else on this? So just to sum up, I'm going to ask representative, well, is this even a good time to do this? I want to ask representative Lalonde and Christie to our next meeting to discuss this pipeline. Is that the only thing that's making me go, wait a minute is the damn session. On the other hand, waiting until after the session means nothing happens until October at which point it's too late again. Well, right now, it's just crossover, like the session's not over. It certainly is an important time in which, you know, some bills could die right now. Sure. But those bills that go forward their day in the state house is far from over. Right. And I like the idea of inviting in chair Lalonde and coach Christie or any other house judiciary members, but I would also say then maybe we should invite in Senate judiciary chair and members. Got Dick himself, then like Nader. Nader Tanya, I mean, anyone, any of the members from both committees, not just one committee. Okay. Okay. So Sears, Ruth, Lalonde and Christie, is that sound okay? And I don't know. Representative Arsenault has been showing up at our panel. I'm not sure. You might invite everybody and see who shows up. I don't know. I support the idea of inviting whomever from the committees for next month. I also support putting in writing something we could submit to the committees on behalf of RDAB as Mark suggested. Something that, again, I don't know how much, but I think there are at the most broad based level, we can get to some agreement that's consistent with the entire mission of RDAB. And perhaps you could, again, thank you for willing to put this draft, this initial, but maybe send it around. I don't know, get our feedback. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. It doesn't have to be very long. It's just an invite with a description of what our issue is. That's all. That's fine. Mark has put into the chat, invite Republicans, Norris. Mr. Chair, I was just going to recommend chair and vice chair in Senate and House judiciary, and then sort it out with them. So if they need to figure out, oh, a quorum is going to be at the RDAB, then they can figure out who's going to show up, if that makes sense. Unless they want to, I just think they'll probably want to avoid a quorum, but they can still have some folks that they can send. So, okay, I will, I'll get that. I'm sorry, Aitanya. This is just another construct that just obstructs us from getting stuff done. That quorum thing is I understand public meaning perfect. And I hate to say this to an attorney, but as long as they're not voting on anything, they can be anywhere they want to be. Yeah, no, it just has a heads up for them. I don't disagree with you being at a restaurant or something like that. It's totally up to the chairs, but I just think not inviting the vice chairs is something that I've gotten scolded before for doing, so I just wanted to let you guys know. All right. Aaron, is it all right? I would like to start the letter and then send it around. Is there a problem with that? We've discussed it in an open meeting. Yeah, and I just, I'm not, I'll be able to. We can't word Smith collectively on a document outside of a warned meeting. Okay. I will do my best. I will send it to you. If you have something to say, maybe you could say it would be nice if the fourth sentence of the second paragraph conveyed the idea of, and then I'll word Smith. I think we would all have to make sure in this meeting that it's clear what you're going to be writing about. And then we all are saying that sounds great, Aetan. And then I think you can send that letter out to the group. And if anybody has concerns about it, like, whoa, whoa, whoa, that is not what you talked about in the meeting, Aetan. They can address that with you. Great. I will be writing about our difficulty getting bills with the racial equity. Oh God, I can't talk anymore. Equity focus or with equity impact in front of the body that you wanted to have do this in a timely fashion so that we can be effective. We would like to discuss with you ways in which to improve that pipeline or indeed in some ways create it. Love your RDAP. Can we also add in this general statement that we as a panel believe there should be a racial equity impact assessment done? On all bills. Sure, on all bills. I mean, where, where, yeah. I don't know. That's great. The way I'm hearing you just say is we can't do it and we don't have the resources. But I think it's really important for us to say it should be done. It should be done. Right. Okay. We can't do it under this. Got it. Sounds like three, like three points, like the first few made Aetan, then Rebecca's third point. And you know, if this is my last time, I was going to point you on the RDAP anyway. So I think that sounds fine. And then I just wanted to say a point actually leads loops, I think, helpfully to what a point Sheila made. I'm still going to be around as staff for Zana. For Zana is on our Executive Committee. So in some ways, getting to your point, Mark, there'll be a more direct communique with a member who's actually my supervisor. For Zana is my supervisor on the Executive Committee. All of them are sort of my bosses. And so in that, I will explain to her as well before the April meeting, some of this conversation. But in some ways, me stepping back and, and sort of allowing someone who's in a supervisory role to come engage with the group more, I think is, is hopefully a good thing. And I'm not going anywhere. Sheila just like, I'll still do my best to show up and support the group and for Zana. But the Executive Committee for Zana showed an interest, the first state's attorney, I think that's ever shown interest in actually being on the RDAP. And I wanted to encourage that. So I wasn't, I wasn't removed. I thought I just want to make that clear. I'd like to direct your attention to the chat where Mark points out that the letter that I outlined with Rebecca does not address any, oh, and Rebecca's agreeing here. So good. This doesn't address any attempt to avert the specific append impending doom. Rebecca. So I would propose adding a line in there saying, until until the committees receive a racial impact equity impact assessment on these bills, we recommend what not, you know, we recommend you wait, we wait, we recommend that the committee wait until it receives a racial equity impact assessment. And that's something I as much as I appreciate the sentiment. I can't commit to that in the public meeting. I just want to be up front. Okay. Understood. And then Jennifer Road, I'm also wondering if it would be helpful, especially for the new leg or new legislators to understand the overlaps and differences with the ORE and RDAP. I think that when they reach out to ORE, they think they are checking that box, as I mentioned, the eight on engine. That is not okay. But I think that is not okay. But I think education is critical. It's good point. That's an excellent point, Jennifer. Yes, Mark. Yeah, the language that I think we just sent out in one of our mass mailers this afternoon was something to the effect. There should be an implementation delay. Got it. Okay. Let me, if I could just be allowed to continue. It says there should be an implementation delay on criminal justice reform rollbacks to allow for an outside impact assessment review to enable us to understand the totality of the collective policy changes. This will also allow for racial equity review of state investments in systems of prevention, mental health, and other social support. Mark, question. Can you send that to me? Of course. Thank you. Rebecca. He's a panel member. I just want to share that I like that language that Mark just read out loud and I would support having that included in the letter. I agree as a panel member. Okay. Others? I wonder if we should do a vote on this because that way I could vote no and it still might carry forth, if that makes sense. On this one point on this one, on the implementation delay. Oh, yeah. Can I just say, I have to speak up real quick about this. This is a tricky situation that I am now in. If we're going to start voting and I want to explain why. And I'm going to use a specific example that you have to testify about tomorrow, Aton, which is H655, which is a bill that would change our record clearance laws from expungement to ceiling. My goal in this bill is twofold to increase the list of qualifying crimes that you can get cleared from your record. And then two is to move towards an automatic process. So you don't have to file a petition at all. It's just after a certain number of years, your record is cleared. To me in my mind, I thought that would be an access to justice benefit, including for marginalized or underserved groups, because some of the crimes that are added to the list are felony drug, drug sales dispensing and transportation offenses that we all know from the CRG report are disproportionately offenses charged against Black and Brown people. So in my mind, I was thinking it would have a benefit in terms of reducing racial disparities. The Defender General's Office has come in and pointed out ways that it could have a disparate impact, a negative impact. ORE came in today and testified about how they think we just need more time. And so I think that, you know, there's valid arguments on both sides about whether this bill is a benefit or could cause some disparate impacts and they would be unintended, but still disparate. So it's negative. So we don't want that, right? So however, from the get go, this has been a bill that's a priority of the Attorney General to try to improve our record clearance laws. So now if we're going to have a vote on whether the ARDAP writes a letter that would essentially halt the bill, and I can't talk to the Attorney General, I mean, the Attorney General very well could be like, well, this is a really important part of the process that needs to happen. But right now it's 7.30 p.m. and you have to testify tomorrow, Etan, and we're talking about a letter that would be sent to House Judiciary during the week of crossover. So process-wise, this is just tricky for if we're going to start voting on this letter and not to diminish the importance of equity, racial equity impact assessment happening on all these criminal justice bills, really, really appreciate that point and the importance of that. I just want to be transparent about the position I'm now sitting in on this panel. I mean, everybody's always multiply compromised. That's just how it is, I think, but okay. So I'm writing a letter inviting Chair and Vice Chair Judiciary, Chair and Vice Chair, I mean, sorry, Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary, so four people, right? Then I, and I'm going to say, you know, talk about, that's what we were supposed to do. It's not happening. We need a better pipeline. Would you please come and talk to me then, Rebecca, your point, right? Okay. That's one letter. Now, do you want another letter then to go, I don't know, where, joint judicial oversight about stopping this, that this is going so quickly, that our job, in fact, doesn't have time to look at all of this? Does that mark? I don't think you should use any language that suggests you're stopping anything. I think that's, that's a, that's another disaster, because you're going to secure to hell out of a lot of people and you're also going to piss a lot of people off. I think, I think it's really a matter of just slowing it down. Because Erin is, as much as what Erin said is true and completely understandable, I mean, it's, you know, like mad practical, what she just said, but what the Attorney General's Office doesn't understand is what this policy combined with the full effect of all of the other policies in 176, 534, 58, 655, blah, blah, blah, you know, what that, what that impact is going to be. I don't think anybody does. No, I, right, but I'm not going to, but the one thing is, Mark, we're not going to get that much in the weeds, because not all of everybody on the panel has gone through all of that. Well, staying out of the weeds, all I'm really saying is, is that, you know, the language shouldn't be stopped. It should be delay until such time as the aforementioned review and the analysis could be conducted. And the language is in your email right now. Okay. Thank you very much. Rebecca and Sheila also have it. Brand. Okay. I will, I will get on this soon. Very, very soon. Rebecca. And your question as to an additional letter. I was just suggesting that the letter be filed with the Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee, sort of as an addition to your testimony or statements on these two bills tomorrow, this week. Oh, It's a real gradient of what you're, was I, what I understood you to say you were going to talk about tomorrow. And when you, I was going to talk about it, I wasn't going to write about it. That's all. But you think I, I've got to be honest. I, I, I have no time to write between now and tomorrow morning. That's, that's just not, just can't happen. I'm afraid. I will, I'll speak tomorrow morning and I'll write after that and tell them that, you know, that I'm submitting this, this letter about the pipeline need for a pipeline. I mean, you know, and that in other words, it's a written down version of what I'm writing to the four legislators broader and yet not as specific like we need you here next month. Okay. Right. Cool. All right. What are we up to? 176, but we don't really have to have that conversation because it's moot now. We're not going to do it as a panel. So we don't have to do that last part. You're supposed to be happy. Go ahead, Rebecca. I would only address that because we did mention in our report to the extent that there is already a filing referencing that I do think it's a moment, but it's only if it's just a moment to say, we put it in our report, which you haven't invited me in to talk about that. Right. I don't know. I'm just bringing that. That's, that's one little tiny difference of each 176 as opposed to all the others we've been talking about. Okay. Okay. No, that's fine. I can say that tomorrow. I'll remember that. I can say that. No, that's fine. And then we'll go on to the letters after that. All right. On it. I will do it. So that kind of is all we have for tonight. Like that was really easy. Anything else anyone wants to bring up under sort of like new business, anything of that sort, we've sort of been there, but there may be more. No. Oh, Tim, go ahead. You know, thanks to everybody for the last I've been on here for now October 2022. And since I started and learned a lot, enjoyed getting to know some of you. And you all should have my email, my cell phone, ATON knows that I will respond to communications at most hours of the day and night. So the ever question or something that feels like it's in the realm of state's turnies, etc. that you just want to talk about, etc. I am here a resource for you all and appreciate the work you're doing here. And I'm having for Zana and ATON do a play date to say hello and introduce themselves to each other out of the session. We're going to meet in White River or something like that. And, you know, if there's anything that you all want me to pass along to Farzana as the new appointee, just let me know. And thanks for all your work. And, you know, I'm here. Thank you all. Mark, did you have something that you wanted to throw in? We're sort of, okay. We have offered testimony on PR4, the constitution that seeks to create a new article for equal protection. Right. So I wanted to make, I think this body is very important that this body, Aaron, Aaron, you and I have already started conversations about this. So we found consensus with the Human Rights Commission, the Office of Racial Equity, the HCLU, as well as Professor Teachout that the amendment should stand as a separate article that there's an example in PR4 in 2019. And I just wanted to let you know that it's important that the language be refined to ensure that we are able to memorialize the intent of the Constitutional Amendment to ensure that the foundation, there's a foundation that supports a clear path to an option for evolving state jurisprudence on equal protection in Vermont. Existing federal jurisprudence on equal protection is the floor and the state jurisprudence would be the ceiling. So systemic racism and other forms of systemic oppression obviously they're creating the wealth disparities and indirectly affecting the health and the welfare and threatening the economic growth and development and ultimately placing democracy at risk here in the state. So this amendment is really going to serve as the foundation for expanded protections that include the development and the use of state equal protection doctrine that could ensure the survival of governmental solutions designed to redress discriminatory policies and correct disparate outcomes. This is also to sustain against attacks on existing protected civil rights and support the expansion of protections of and to additional classifications as needed. So these protections are going to also include the tools hopefully to thwart the emerging challenges of discriminatory algorithms and old harms that the federal protection is improving and effective. So the reason why it's super important here is again this goes across prosecution and defense as well as the bench. It's very critical that we get the testimony that we need in on this even if you disagree with it show up and testify they're going to be trying to vote this thing out of out of Senate judiciary on Friday. I said vote out on Friday and this constitutional amendment you must you must understand it must clear the Senate and the House right before the before mid-May. Right. And that includes a public hearing because that's that is the protocol in and we also that's the constitutional requirement in the House. It must have a public hearing and it has to stay on schedule for five days as a constitutional amendment. So it's tight. Okay Mark quick ask what do you want the our doubt to do right now. I would like those of you who represent the attorney general's office here for those who because the attorney general is the one who's going to have to defend this if if if it becomes a constitutional amendment first of all. So that's most important. So we haven't I haven't heard anything from that office yet. I know we've talked about it but I think I think those who are represented from the Superior Court as well as state's attorneys as and defender general's offices should should be chiming in on what it is we're trying to do here. Good, bad or indifferent. Okay. That's the long way of saying please support the constitutional amendment. Yeah now got that part. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Sheila. I just wanted to bring up a different subject. Sorry for my darkness. I apologize. I wanted to know if we'll be discussing or if we can put on the agenda maybe for the next time of the Vermont Department of Children and Families initiative to build the 27 beds for the youth and I'm really wondering about what our interest is in that conversation and specifically looking at the disparities that could create the history of Woodside and the history of systems like that with our youth in general. So I'm very I'm very curious to have a conversation with this group because I feel like some issues might come up later later in this process and I know there are people here representing DCF and I feel like we often keep on moving away from juvenile justice and really want to make sure we're continuing to focus on that area. Okay. I would love to have conversation about DCF's intentions of building residential bed space. So if that's the area of topic that we'd like to discuss I'm happy to bring that. Would someone just shoot me an email to remind me that I need to put that on the agenda just like you know a dumb little hey you you know residential stuff just something like that and I'll remember then thank you but we'll do that for next month maybe I'm hoping. Yeah I could certainly prepare something for that. Good and groovy we'll do thank you Sheila. Yes thank you. Oh two other things I should have announced both witchy and sing as you'll remember it sing have asked to resign from the RDAP. They are both appointments from the Office of Racial Equity so Susanna is on it now looking for their replacements for us. Okay so there's that I can't really tell you much about this about why other you know other things that they need to be worried about and concerned with and such was pretty much what I got and so there's nothing I'm holding back really but you should all know that. All right yes who? Will you please share to them I'll reach out individually but thank them on behalf of the panel. I will I shall do that yes for their work and contributions that will be missed. Absolutely will absolutely will and that's all sorry are you doing any kind of exit interviews with those folks? I had not planned to I'm just trying to keep my head above water at this point. Super productive for yes I do know I would actually have to ask if someone else wants to take that on if they do it I have no more discretionary time. Does do we have a certain process or questions or template or anything that that we have to be able to do that or is this something that we should have been doing from the onset that's being brought up that we'd have to create a system for? Well it's not really creating a system so much is it we would we would definitely need a list of things to ask we would need you know and it would I mean there are templates for such things but this is a rather specific committee so I don't think any of those would work. We definitely would need something that would be tailored to the RDAB. Perhaps it would be worthwhile if next time we meet also we can discuss what our thoughts are for a list of questions that could go into that and then whoever administers exit I think it's a great idea to have an exit interview. I do too I think it's wonderful it just I I just am at my limit right now. Well then we can share responsibility. Yes that would be wonderful. Great are we there then? I have nothing else to bring before you. Bye Mark. Bye. No okay. Then let's just be done with that adjournment part and not worry about voting it if that's everybody can just go have dinner now. Thank you very much all of you for everything as always Sheila certainly for you to bring me off this you know ledge when I'm like but we have to make sure the trains run on time and you're like well you know there might be a calmer way of doing that and I'd be like oh really what an interesting thought so which was what I was referring to in the letter and everybody else for everything that you've allowed me to put into the letter because of your commitment and your dedication and clarity of thought frankly which it made it very easy it's very easy to write in behalf of on behalf of this body and that's all you that is all you so thank you and so with that I will see you in April I'll be in touch before then and tomorrow I'm going to tell them nothing not nothing but you know what I mean they're not going to get their question answered so um that's okay that says it should be I think so all right grand good night