 Good morning and welcome to a joint hearing between the House and the Judiciary Committees and we are continuing our discussion on H317 Act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and I am going to turn this meeting over to Representative Kevin Coach Christie who has really been taking the lead on this bill which I very much appreciate. So good morning Coach. Good morning Representative Grev, Madam Chair and welcome to our colleagues from the Senate and it's always great to see you my friends and happy birthday to Chair Sears again. Thank you Coach. You know we had talked about April being a big month in the legislature for birthdays. There's a number of us that share April as that happy month. To move into our discussion I will be asking for screen share just briefly to kind of set the context of our discussion so if I can get Evan to allow me to do that well I'd like to share with you is and for some it might seem okay come on you gotta love it you know you test all of this stuff you know beforehand then you just go okay oh there we go let's make sure it's working. So what we will do is you'll notice that get it to move right there we go. The red box in the middle is the jumping off point for our discussion. Both the House and the Senate had a bill that looked at setting up a bureau of racial justice statistics and a bureau also comprised of an advisory panel that would support that bureau. And as the Senate shared their bill as one await which was a mirror image of the House Bill 317 our two chairs decided to have the House take the first run you know at the bill and that's what we're doing at this point you know we haven't taken a formal testimony as yet around the this amendment that Eric will detail for us but I wanted to share some of the thinking as you can see when we look at the the boxes to the right there's been a lot of recommendations in discussion. You know we looked at Judge Grierson, Representative Racialson and others strongly recommended that the bureau reside in the office of racial equity. There were some including Representative Colburn that suggested that it might be a good fit in the Human Rights Commission. And then there were a number of folks that thought that maybe under the agency of administration and the agency of digital services. And then as you go through the testimony that we heard you know we see that our DAP came back with eight possible options over on the left. And Dr. Nazredan Longo presented those to our committee. They included under the office of racial equity, the agency of digital services, a standalone body, the legislature's joint fiscal office, Vermont Secretary of State's office, the office of the auditor, the Human Rights Commission, and then the National Center for Restorative Justice. So listening to the testimony, Professor Sand came and offered you know like his thoughts. And as you all know he's a Vermont law school professor, you know past state's attorney, and also the originator founder of the National Center for Restorative Justice. And we also heard a very strong presentation from Attorney Turner from the Defender General's office, but in their capacity as our DAP member. Looking at you know three of her strongest thoughts being the Secretary of State, the Human Rights Commission, the National Center, and then possibly the agency looking at independence. So continuing, you can see where coming out of S108 and 318, the box on the left, and if I can get my cursor, this box here, it gives you a little explanation of what we were looking at as far as staff. So you know one full-time exempt executive director, you know who shall be an information technology data person. And then two full-time exempt data analysts and one full-time classified administrative assistant. You know that would be the, let's say the working body of the group. Some of the existing work that we've all been involved with because of our committees and the statutes that we've been working on. As we go off to the left of that box, and I'm going to make this a little smaller so we can get everything on the screen. This area here you know speaks to you know the criminal justice training council, justice reinvestment, the supporting legislation you know within the jurisdiction you know of the council. And then the work that the council of state governments have been doing regarding reinvestment. And I think their contract as I recall in some of the testimony is coming to a close after within a year I think. What we did in this in this map too there's links to supporting the supporting subchapters that look at some of the areas that are jurisdictional to the to the council. And the reason that I highlighted these is they're the areas that our dep have been talking about in their data gathering. And in addition to the data what I found interesting in evaluating some of the the underlying statutes is there's a lot of oversight within the capability or ability that we've empowered the criminal justice training council and its executive director. And in some cases it hasn't been used the way we would hope over time and you know we can talk about that at another time. But the data input points that go along with the training and legislation most recently passed around use of force are all let's say couched within this area of jurisdiction. And it's interesting that the power for oversight is also there. As we as we look at this area the green the green panel this actually starts to talk about the amendment to 317. And what I'm suggesting is is that the bureau at least at this point in time be stood up under our DAP. And the reason for that you know being that the work of our DAP is directly related to the concept of the bureau. And some of the the formulation you know of that when our DAP did its report they had a subcommittee of their panel which convened more regularly than the actual our DAP committee itself. And it worked very very well and they were able to execute very strong document. So taking that into account what we would be looking at is our DAP would take the leadership you know of standing up the bureau. A subcommittee of our DAP would actually act as the panel for the bureau. And within that context we have a number of our colleagues that sit on that panel that I guess I'll refer to them as data geeks. They I see you know the doctor smiling over there. So and that's an indication of their interest in that. And that group would take that. So what we would also do is move the supports over to our DAP to allow for the implementation you know of the bureau. So we would hire a director slash administrator that would take the coordinating role for the bureau. We would also hire an administrative support person that would take a dual role not only supporting the director but also adding direct supports to our DAP which would be in addition to what the AG's office has been offering since its inception. You'll notice the fourth box says add the office of racial equity to our DAP. Well when we created our DAP the office of racial equity was not in existence. Even though you see the office participating in our DAP on a regular basis the office does not have a vote. So what would occur in you know this model would be that the office would have a vote and what I'd like to also suggest and this isn't in the draft presently but that we add two additional members to our DAP that would be selected by the office of racial equity with expressed interest and background not only as BIPOC members of the Vermont community but with an interest in data or a background in data in that selection. And you know here's here's where we get to something that our DAP has done very very well which is collaboration. It works functionally very well you know considering the number of people that Dr. Eton has to deal with. They play well in the sandbox you know most of the time at least and I see the nod so I think my observation is reasonably accurate. So what we would be looking at is creating this collaborative of Vermont data specialists and it could include such members as the chief performance officer that presently does all of the performance data gathering for the state of Vermont. You know we would also look to the National Center for Restorative Justice for supports. We would look also to and we wouldn't name these folks in the bill because we don't name individuals but we have some key data providers and specialists that have been doing some great work for the state you know such as you know our CRG and Dr. Suqueno and Pat Atilio. And we'd be looking to you know that group to actually do our gathering and analysis along with our director of the Bureau. And then in talking with the Council of Estate Governance Governments they've also offered their assistance in the continuing development you know of this project. Now before we have Eric walk us through the draft of the bill this is a divergence from a lot of the testimony that we took as far as folks looking to you know where the Bureau would be housed at present. And the interesting thing you know is the thinking seemed to lean towards the office of the director of racial equity. The my thinking about not doing that at this point at least is we've tasked that office in almost every single piece of legislation we've passed in the last two years to do work. Now we finally as a body given that office supports so that it could do its work but this is the first time that the office will have those supports at hand. So putting that office under more duress so to speak by moving the Bureau or starting the Bureau there would not be an effective use of energy. If anything you know it's the potential for imploding would be fairly high I think. So as you can see there's a lot of interfacing that's going on in this model and what it does is it leaves the opportunity for growth and change. So as the office gains its strength it would be reasonably easy for us as the policy makers to make any let's say adaptations that we need to at a later point. So that's my thinking that's what's been going on in my head it's a very strange place to be and to go my wife always says that you wouldn't want to go in there it's a scary place but I really appreciate the opportunity and I'm humbled by being offered this chance to work for our chairs. Senator Sears and Representative Grad and thank you for this opportunity. So I'd like to shift the floor over to our Ledge Council. Thank you. Thank you very much coach it's really helpful to be and unfortunately the Judiciary Committee Senate Judiciary I'll have to leave at 11. I don't want to leave anything any stones unturned but as three members of Senate Judiciary are on the Senate Appropriations Committee they will be concerned about how to get something in the budget for a white term too and I hope you're working with your House Congress for that. Morning Eric. Morning. So should I proceed right to a quick walkthrough of the language that makes sense for everybody? Yes thank you. Sure. Okay so Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Budget Legislative Council here to walk the committee through Representative Christie's proposed amendment to H317 the Act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics. I'm also going to share a document share the amendment I think that'll be helpful to take a quick look at it but before I do I'll just reiterate what Representative Christie said and he gave a big very helpful and description of what the proposal is here so in a sense this is just going to be taking a quick look at the language that puts on paper what you just heard already and that is essentially you remember that in the bill and the companion bill in the Senate as well and the bill has introduced the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics was housed alongside the office and director of racial equity within the agency of administration so that's where it was and the bill is introduced in this proposal rather than be within the agency of administration the idea is that the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics would be housed within and governed by the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems advisory panel which I'll refer to as RDAP so it would be housed supervised housed within supervised by RDAP and you may recall that also in the bill as introduced the Bureau was overseen by an advisory panel in the same way that it works under under the agency of administration now but the new proposal was that rather than there be a separate panel that oversees the Bureau it would be overseen by a subcommittee that is established within RDAP so that's the main structural shift between the bill as introduced and the amendment you're looking at now so the Bureau no longer in the agency of administration would be housed within governed by RDAP there would not be a separate advisory panel and a separate one needed to be established but rather it would be a subcommittee that would be established within RDAP that would have the same role and when we look at the the same role as the advisory panel and the bill is introduced I should say but when we look at the language you'll see that the substantive work of both the Bureau and this sort of advisory body is the same there's no changes to the substantive data that the Bureau gathers no change to the types of data no change to the sort of interrelationship between the Bureau and in this case a subcommittee of RDAP but what had been an advisory panel there's still this back and forth relationship between those bodies and they're still reporting to the legislature so those substantive pieces are all virtually identical it's just the structural place that the that the Bureau sits that has changed so having said that I'll just walk the committee through the language real quick so you can see the changes that are made I'm going to share the the bill and I'll pull that right up for you so here is the Representative Christie's proposed amendment to H317 please I'm assuming everybody can see it but let me know if you can't so you'll see that right away and again yellow highlighting is used to show the change between the bill as introduced and the amendment that you're looking at now so all all the language related to the Bureau being in alongside the racial equity office in the agency of administration is all struck you see that so as you see in line 13 it's not within the executive branch under the agency administration instead as you can see in the new lines 15 through 17 the Bureau is organized within governed by our deck so that's where the Bureau is relocated to essentially in this proposal and you'll see that this is the other point that Representative Christie was making is that so rather than the Bureau essentially employing several IT specialists to collect the data on systemic racial bias and disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems rather than the Bureau with its own staff collecting that data itself the idea is to have the Bureau rely on and collaborate with the entities that already collect that data so that's what you see is going on in subdivision two here so in specifically ways out that for purposes of collecting data related to the systemic bias the Bureau facilitates collaboration that's line three so it's a different function rather than collecting the data itself it facilitates collaboration for purposes of collecting this data amongst and then you see some listed entities that Representative Christie had mentioned as well Vermont crime research group the chief performance officer chief data outside national center for restorative justice UBM and there's some catchall language as well that any other entity that would be the assistance to the Bureau as well and so the Bureau you see in lines 1011 they coordinate the collaboration between these entities for purposes of collecting the data so they're not in other words as I mentioned collecting it themselves they coordinate the collection amongst these entities that already do it and you'll see this language here is unchanged as I'm moving further down the page and this is because this is the substantive data that they coordinate the collection up so as I mentioned there is no change to the substantive types of data that's that are being collected it's just sort of how it's being collected and organized so Bureau coordinates all these entities listed here for purposes of this collection this first you may remember from the previous walk through the bill this is all data related to juvenile juvenile justice system no changes to any of that types of data I'm not going to go through it again we've gone through this a couple of times same thing with sub D here this is the adult criminal justice system same exact same language that you just saw rather than the Bureau if you sort of look at line 16 and 17 if you imagine the highlighted language not being there the way the bill read as introduced was the Bureau shall collect remember it went right from the Bureau shall to line 17 collect the following data so the Bureau isn't doing the collecting under this proposal the Bureau is coordinating coordinating the collection through the collaboration of those identity those entities that we just looked at as well as any other entities that the Bureau might find useful for that purpose so they coordinate the collection by those other entities but the substantive data is the same see so there's no changes here again this is the adult criminal data system no changes to any of that it's just how it's being collected and then some of the other Bureau's responsibilities substantively also remain the same other than data collection but they do these they perform these duties in consultation with this is line 16 and 17 so the Bureau not necessarily on its own but in consultation with those other entities they analyze the data that's basically what's going on here analyze the data in order to you know identify stages of the criminal and justice system where racial and racial bias and disparities are most likely to occur organize and synthesize the data in the cohesive and logical manner so that can be best presented and understood so again those those there's no changes to those duties of the Bureau it's just that rather than do that on their own since they're obviously not going to have as much staff they do it in consultation with these other entities same thing with the other requirements that the Bureau has under subsection at they do it in consultation with those entities they develop the standardized data system they develop they propose methods to permit sharing and communication of the data among state and local agencies other departments that collect it and they recommend evidence-based practices and standards for collection retention of the data they have to maintain a no changes to that by the way you'll see the public-facing website they still maintain no changes to that now their reporting is obviously going to be a little bit different because as I mentioned the oversight is a little different there's not this separate panel rather it's a subcommittee within our DAP and that's what's identified here so they do a monthly report starting in December they report its data analyses and recommendations not to the panel you see that struck through on line 17 but rather the report is made to the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics subcommittee established by the section we're going to look at within our DAP so the subcommittee in our DAP is the one who receives these monthly reports from the Bureau and then the Bureau does not report directly to the legislature that's struck through on the top of page eight rather it's going to be the subcommittee within our DAP that does the reporting but then you'll see a lot of stark language because this advisory panel that was in the the bill was introduced a separate advisory panel that oversaw the Bureau that doesn't exist in this draft rather it's going to be within our DAP so there's going rather than have this entirely new section you just the proposal is to make some amendments to the our DAP statute which is you'll see line three which is title three section 168 the first one actually is the one that Representative Christie mentioned the other distinct item you'll see on line 13 that our DAP is proposed to increase in size by one member and that member is you'll see on line seven of page 12 the executive director of racial equity position that didn't exist when our DAP was first created so it wasn't in there at the time so the proposal was to add that member to our DAP and then you get to the no changes to any of the other parts of the our DAP the existing our DAP statute but then you Eric quick comment if you don't yes please um yeah go ahead when you added the new member you didn't put as or designate like we've done for everyone else um I don't know if there's a reason for that for the executive the director of racial disparities racial equity I mean um but given that we're adding people to her staff that was I don't know if it shouldn't be or designate yeah that's a good point I just wasn't hadn't been sure whether or not there were enough other potential designate so I wasn't sure whether to put it but you're right if the staff is bigger it makes even more sense to it stands out when we're got all these other people right that doesn't mean it that makes sense you know as it's growing the office that makes sense I'm just noting that um so uh right so um put that in for next draft and the last piece though of the well the next piece regarding the our DAP channel was to again as I mentioned uh specifically provide that the that the our DAP is going to establish and this is line 18 establish a bureau of racial justice statistics subcommittee so this is the the uh entity that oversees the bureau but rather than being the separate advisory panel the entity is uh is a subcommittee of our day the duties and responsibilities of this of its oversight are are unchanged you see it's just the fact that it's a different body but it's specifically provides that the subcommittee is going to have be consist of five panel members so in other words it's five members of the our DAP panel were selected by the chair with the advice and consent of the panel so the concept is that there's consent amongst the panel as to which five members should be on the subcommittee so uh subcommittee as I mentioned the the duties and responsibilities are exactly the same as as what they were for the panel and the previous drafts they work with uh the executive director of the bureau of racial justice statistics to implement their statutory requirements they advise the executive director they evaluate the data and analysis that they receive from the bureau and they make recommendations to the bureau as a result of those in that evaluation so you have this back and forth relationship that they're looking at the data giving the the bureau and the executive director advice as to how to best uh uh implement the policies how to respond to the data it's a it's certainly envisions a a as I mentioned a reciprocity of a relationship between the the subcommittee and the and the bureau and then uh it's the it's the subcommittee that we see in line 11 that does the annual reporting to the legislature to the house and senate committees on judiciary and on government government operations and these reports substantively have not been changed from what the panel would have done in the previous draft they the reports have to include findings on the systemic racial bias and disparities within the criminal and juvenile justice systems that are based upon the data and analysis that the subcommittee got from the bureau so they in other words there's that analysis of the data so that they can extrapolate findings from the data and report them uh to the legislature they also would include a status report on the progress made and recommendations for further action to address systemic racial bias uh so the sort of this ongoing analysis and oversight of the topic and that's the end of what the what the uh subcommittee does its responsibilities again that the change also necessitated some changes in uh positions being created and uh the appropriation which is still waiting to hear anything specific about that but with respect to the positions you'll see that the new permanent positions are created in the bureau which is and this is lines three and four within the within our depth so that's where these positions are they're in the bureau within our depth uh but since the uh since the collection of data is now being done by the other bodies that the the collaboration facilitated by the bureau rather than the bureau collecting the data itself you don't need the those two full-time IT data analysts to do that uh collection because the bureau's responsibilities are different they're facilitating the collection by those other groups that are already doing it so you still have the full-time executive director lines five and six that doesn't change but the two full-time IT staff are struck you keep the one full-time administrative assistant so you'd have two people instead of four and as I mentioned in the appropriation and haven't heard a specific number yet as to what that would be but obviously going to be substantially less because of the removal of the two full-time IT positions so but I'll be able to update that number shortly and that brings us to to the end of the walkthrough that's the the gist of it um I can pull the document down or answer questions whatever uh whatever the committee's pleasure is madam and mr chair mr chair and madam chair may I um throw some yes senator white so as you probably know I also uh am on government operations and chair that committee and we I hate to throw a monkey wrench in here but we've been talking a lot about the gathering of statistics and also in combination with the government accountability and all of that and what we've found is that we do not have any standard way in the state to collect racial and gender data and so we've been talking about the need to expand this beyond just in the justice system because we need to have a standard way of collecting data and analyzing racial and gender data in our healthcare systems education justice economic development housing employment we need to and so our one of the things we've been talking about is should this just be a bureau that looks at uh racial statistics in the criminal justice system or should it look at racial and gender statistics across our state so that we really have some sense of um what we're doing anyway that's we we've been talking a lot about that in many areas and so I just I just throw that out there and we haven't taken talked at all about like where it should live or the organizational structure or anything like that but but we need to have a broader sense of racial and gender statistics in the state I don't necessarily disagree senator white but I would point out that this bureau grew from the justice reinvestment effort right I know that problem and trying to um look at how race um and other factors were impacting our criminal and juvenile justice systems we just didn't have the data and so I I think while I totally agree on getting all the data for all these different issues I think doing something specifically within the criminal and juvenile justice system is extremely important um just in order to make the changes we need to make I think we need better data we just we don't know I mean that was embarrassing almost embarrassing whenever when um people from the justice center were saying you can't really tell you why we have this number of persons of color incarcerated in Vermont we just can't tell you because the data is missing I realize that and I know that we're the judiciary committee so that's where we're focused but we are hearing the exact same thing in our healthcare system we don't have the statistics we don't know we're hearing the same thing in our housing employment all of those systems we just don't have the statistics so what I'm suggesting is that maybe we think about if we're going really going to set up a bureau that we shouldn't when we are the judiciary committee so I understand that that's the focus here but if you talk to the other committees you'll hear the exact same thing we had no idea in the pandemic about the the um impact on people of color or on women who had to leave the workforce so anyway it's just a suggestion I'm just throwing it out and we're continuing to look at um how we might um address this whole issue in government operations I'm just throwing it out uh if I may um both uh senator sears uh and uh senator I think your points are very well taken and if you look at the uh the mind map is as as uh silly as it might seem sometimes um all of those things were taken into account and uh because of the nature of some of the other work that I do both of your comments are very well taken but in order to at looking at it from a data perspective and I think uh as we take more testimony along the way uh it's there are some very uh big uh infrastructure questions that come into play uh when you look at those pieces but I think as far as influencing our work uh as the legislature from a policy position position if we can establish a template that works within this system it will be the model that could be utilized to grow the data infrastructure for the rest of the system because one of the things that we know is is that when we look at the disparities and we've come to find out how interconnected they all are the best quote I heard was it's the air we breathe so it didn't it's influenced everywhere uh economics housing education as you stated uh every facet you know of our work you know here in the state and it's impacted in every single area but if if we can come up with a system where we have a lot of the same players which is interesting if you look at our enabling legislation for our debt the agency of human services which is one of the biggest agencies and comprises a lot of those those categories that you mentioned is part of this the jurisdiction of education and housing is covered through the human rights commission those are the affected communities so when you deal with the disparities and you're looking at data that's disparaging to any of the any of the affected classes the commission has that jurisdiction so we actually have built a structure that could allow us to design that next step that by moving forward as we as we do our work here so I that that was just an observation because they've been doing some work with GAC you know in another part of our life and then you know looking at those other disparities so I agree you know those are concerns but I think getting started here might be a very good vehicle for us to move forward thanks and coach I'm gonna keep the have you keep holding the baton and well I guess I guess at this point we did invite and this is still a conversation this isn't you know let's say taking you know testimony which we will be doing actual testimony being that we had both committees together it seemed to make sense to have you know to vary from our normal procedure every once in a while that's not a bad thing to do so we do have the chair of our DAP with us and we have a number of members of our DAP that have joined us as well just to kind of share some thinking around this different perspective um so I guess my thought would be to start with uh Dr. Nezra and Lingo and we will go from there can we get Eric to take down the shared so we can see people I might add that Senate Judiciary is going to have to leave in about five minutes yes Senator Benning's hand oh I'm sorry yeah it's it's hard one the screen Senator Benning and I just ask Eric a question I understood in the leadoff to the discussion that the Bureau was coming out from underneath the wing of the executive branch to what branch does this Bureau become responsible what am I missing this is the first time I'm seeing it and I guess I'm trying to be clear on what branch other than the Bureau having to issue reports to certain elements what branch of government actually controls this Bureau and so within our DAP our DAP does the hiring our DAP does the oversight of the Bureau the the management and authority is rest within our DAP over the Bureau and I believe in our DAP itself I think is within the Attorney General's office giving it a certain amount of independence to a degree I'm just trying to play out in my own head I'm not asking out of ignorance because I just don't know is there another entity that is positioned in a similar way I think there's a variety of of different models throughout state government so you know for example the the restitution unit of the Center for Crime Victim Services reports to them and that they're oversee they're have oversight by the victims compensation board you know there's a variety of different models that are used for different different entities okay thank you I think what I'd be best if Senate judiciary left now so we don't leave in the middle of somebody's testimony and I don't want to insult anyone and we will pick up here I thank the chair and coach Christie very much for the presentation and really helpful so that as soon as the House passes this we'll be able to start taking some action on our own thank you thank you thank you very much for for joining us thank you very much thank you just adding that I have to leave as well so any other questions though let me know follow up please thanks Eric yeah thank you